Wakkerstroom and the political unrest of 2008

It is common cause by now that we all know that there is some sort of political unrest in Wakkerstroom. It is also well established that our associate Mr Mlambo is full of criticism for what has happened. Mr Mlambo has however asked all of us to have a word on this. The Chair will want to believe that indeed our associates will make known their position on this matter. This will assist UBPA to formulate an official line and position on this matter. Associates may be ignorant of national politics but the question is what will you do when politics ravage your home and/or place of permanent residence?

The Chair has received further information on this matter to the effect that some people have been held liable and legal proceedings have already been brought against such people. One has reasons to believe that Mr Mlambo will be pleased about such developments since he is the one who holds the view that people must rot behind bars. Let the Chair clarify his position on this matter. Associations, there is a jargon of some sort that says everyone is entitled to their opinions, but there is no jargon, at least to the knowledge of the Chair, that says whatever your opinion is it cannot be challenged. It will then follow that the Chair will vigorously challenge Mr Mlambo's position on this matter. It is, one must emphasise, the view or opinion that is challenged not the person who holds such an opinion.

Let us start at the top. Political unrests, whether violent or peaceful are not uncommon in proper functioning democracies. The Chair is of the view that South Africa, Wakkerstroom included, is a Constitutional democracy and for this reason there is nothing wrong with people expressing their disagreements with their elected representatives. Councillor Ms Nkosi is an elected representative of the people of Wakkerstroom. This means that she is in power with a specific mandate given to her by the people. This also means that she will be in power for as long as the electorate allow her. In other words, her reign is by being favoured by the masses. From this reasoning it follows that she must account to the electorate by constantly reminding them that she reigns for them or on their behalf. At any time the masses can withdraw the mandate they have given to her if they feel she is no longer serving the needs and the interests which they elected her to serve. One hopes this is clear.

From what one gathers, it will appear that the masses are angry about the lack of service delivery in general. The masses want to know what happened to the better life they were promised, they want to know what happened to the contract to create employment that the ANC promised them. Simple legal rules will tell us that if you sign a contract you remain bound by the terms of those contract up until you perform. If you fail to perform that equals a breach of contract to which consequences will follow. A many of our associates will sign employment contracts at some stage of their lives and perhaps then they will better understand what one is taking about here. The people of Wakkerstroom want to know why are service fees going up when there is no employment created, where on earth are people suppose to get the money to pay for the hiked rental services. people want to know when will the road also extend next to their home doors. People want to know when will they get their houses.

By comparison, one is told Volkrust is better than Wakkerstroom so far as the services are concerned. Local governments should be treated the same, and therefore, we cannot have a situation where Volkrust councillors are delivering on their mandate and Wakkerstroom is lagging behind. One has a million and one reasons why the people (that Mr Mlambo calls dogmatic)are justified in doing what they have done. Ms Nkosi was not a responsive councillor, she was never there for the people. The Chair had gone to Wakkerstroom a number of times and has actually lived there, but never does he recall hearing of a meeting that was called so that the councillor accounts what is what.

The youth of Wakkerstroom are clearly sick and tired of poverty and unemployment. The councillor is not helping in any way. For example did she fight for the clinic to be built when it was proposed? Why did she allow the office of services to go to town, Why must people have to go to town to buy their prepaid electricity and why must they go to town if they want to report a blocked sewerage or a leaking tape. A good councillor would have ensured that such services are nearer to the people. The Chair is convinced that Ms Nkosi failed in her duties as councillor.

Coming on the burnt house issue. One would believe that the house was insured so the insurance company will then pay, so all is not lost Mr Mlambo unless of course they were foolish enough not to have it insured. Can any of you tell the Chair what youth policies are in place at Wakkerstroom. What is being done to keep the youth busy and productive? Every job has its risks Ms Nkosi should have known that inherent in the job she was taking was popular unrest.

One's position therefore on this matter is that whatever is happening down there must be supported insofar as it will bring change and development. One is convinced that what we have down there is a political problem that doesn't require the intervention of the incompetent police force of Wakkerstroom. People will have to excuse the Chair's language here but there is no police official at Wakkerstroom who is competent. All really they do is to enrich themselves and abuse state resources by forever driving around in police vans, and yes, run in when the councillor is held to account. Where were they when the people voted for Ms Nkosi and gave her a mandate to change their lives?

We should debate these developments!

UBPA lives, UBPA leads and UBPA is relevant. One condom = one round and one round = one condom.

Thulani Nkosi
Chairperson and Co-head of Education cluster of UBPA

On follow up of the above opinion Innocent Mlambo wrote:

Motho ke motho ka bathu

One wish to give credit where it is due, sister Fezeka and sister Nontobeko I notice you think and rethink about what happened back at home before you sit in front of the computer and write what you think is right then thanks for that. On the other hand, I would also like to thank our chairperson for his contributions that he putted although, I won’t take that seriously because he said that, he was challenging me about what I said not because he meant that. Mr. Chairperson I wasn’t really criticizing but I was just worried about what happened back at home.

Furthermore, sister fezeka thank you again for correcting me, we are not talking about Ms. Nkosi’s house here but we are talking about her home (family included). So how someone can talk as if he watched a movie or read some interesting story in a textbook? Come on good people even if you don’t like other people but they are no reason to wish that people terrible or bad luck in life. I may assume that some people they wish she (Ms. Nkosi) should be burnt with the house. The burnt of that home to me it’s not the political unrest however; indeed, it’s a personal issues with Ms. Nkosi. I know that they are many people who think they can do better that what she was doing but not really sure about that nonetheless.

I really like the point that you mentioned when you said if she “At any time the masses can withdraw the mandate they have given to her if they feel she is no longer serving the needs and the interests which they elected her to serve”. So why they burnt the house is that a political unrest as you said? No, but its personal agenda and people hiding with political unrest. Moreover, I wasn’t really surprised when they mentioned some of the leaders of these dogmatic things (strike) because I know them very well that, they have personal issues with Ms. Nkosi. Those who have information about this I urge them to give me the answer for the following questions. Is Ms. Nkosi (councillor) the person who increases the rent at home? Is she the person who promised all the things you mentioned Mr. Nkosi or is the entire person who are in ANC?

Mr. Chairperson I urge you to find something else to compare with because the one that you mentioned is not right. To support that I can safely tell you this, not so long but this year (in few months back) the Volkrust you are talking about here closed the road that go to Wakkerstroom complaining about the same thing, they burnt their councillor’s car, so which Volkrust are you talking about here Chairperson? Mr. Chairperson one is not convinced by what you said, honestly, I don’t want to say your points of view are mistakenly but I’m indeed, totally disagree with them. I also like to urge the incompetent police force of Wakkerstroom to ensure that criminals go behind bars. Let me say this loud and clear I would not go to support mindless things. People who want to do their dirty job they must go and do it!!! What surprises me is that, we are staying here in Johannesburg at the moment and we always see police in tavern with police vans, so
what’s new with that Mr. Chairperson is because Wakkerstroom is not in the map? Lastly, I don’t want to waste much of time talking about the insurance you mentioned because sister Fezeka already mentioned something.

Fezeka Nkwanyana followed up and argued:


Bahlonishwa let us get one thing straight ,we as UBPA stand for the whole commmunity of UThaka .That being said it is important for us to deal with our prejudices against certain individuals .Ngoba lokhu kungas'faka enjeni.Maybe I hold this view because Iam an idealist or it just comes with my tetitory where you cannot just assume a diagnosis. From the C's comments I could not help but feel that his views on the matter are a bit more persona than needs to be.Your comment on insuranse sir is completely inappropriate irrelevant ,non justifieble .To entertain it a bit sir let me just tell you as Mr. Mlambo has said that that is Ndlangamandla's home and not Lungi's house , and I think you know the difference between a home and a house , any fool can build or own a house , but a family makes it a home .Ndlangamandla's legacy has been turned int o ashes overnight ,if it were an accident it would not be an issue because accidents happen and that is the purpose for insurance .But when it is your brothers that do such thing it then becomes an insult .The same people who did this will be telling us "masibuyele emasisweni ".But they are such hippocrits ,because if that was the case what happened to "umuzi wendoda uyahlonishwa "?. Chair insurance can never bring back what you've lost .You can get shelter , new clothes ,new furniture (also depending on how good the insurance is ), but it will never replace what you lost .As an artist I can imagine all of the works of my hands turned into ashes , tell me how the hell will insurance bring it back to life , the pictures the memories all lost !And focus sir this is painful and we haven't even looked at life , there could have been pets in the house there could have been someone stuck in that house .We cannot condone such sick selfish , beyond develish behavior ,AMANYALA!!!!!! People

F Z E Khalulu


Innocent Mlambo further argued:


It is of utmost importance to start by apologizing for repeating one thing several times to the last mail that I sent because it seems as it made much confusion to other people but that doesn’t mean I regret myself by saying what I said. What I said I said intentionally therefore I will repeat it anytime if possible to clearly indicate it wasn’t a mistake when I profoundly said those people who done such a thing like that (burnt) really need to go behind bars, because what they did is dogmatic.

It is important to move to the next point whereby, I can express my deepest disappointed about reading the mail sent by our chairperson when he is supporting what some individuals done something very bad back at home. I’m really not sure how politics goes but if it allows people to done something stupid like the one they did at home it sound silly to me. I will also repeat this again Ms. Nkosi (Ndlangamandla) did not build that house someone else which I think it’s her father and mother who done that, so why did the house burnt? It is with great sadness again that Mr. Nkosi you want other people to think and believe the same way as you think, the reason I say this is the following statement that you mentioned in the following manner “One would believe that the house was insured so the insurance company will then pay, so all is not lost Mr. Mlambo unless of course they were foolish enough not to have it insured” What if they don’t have that
insurance, is that mean they are stupid as you said? What if the police that are not official did not quickly went and stops that riot, to Ms. Nkosi’s family? Tell me about the younger child and others who are older bebezolinda that insurance to come and fix their house?

It is worth noticing that, the reason Mr. Chairperson you talk in this way is because you not close to that family, then I can safely say I’m starting to understand why you are mentioning all that. Perhaps you should just be honest like Ms. Nkwanyana when she said Lungi (Ms Nkosi) is not her favorite’s person. What I strongly suggest are those people who hate that woman they should just ask her to step down in her position of being a councilor and put someone that they like instead of burning the house. Let me quickly give you this example, people of Wakkerstroom appointed Sunday Makhubu to be a mayor, when he failed to give them their needs they toy toy (strike) for him. And he step back without burning his house. So if they are wise enough they should do the same to Ms. Nkosi and I don’t think she would have problem with that because she is not depending on that position, and you can also support me on that.

What is more brainless about the comrades that you go hand in glove with is that, last night they grouped together and went to my family. Aiming to burn the house just because the unofficial police (my father) protect Ms. Nkosi is that a Constitutional democracy? And for this reason there is nothing wrong with people expressing their disagreements with their elected representatives? If it so then I would conclude by saying what goes around also comes around. What happens to Ms. Nkosi when this dogmatic people burnt the house it would come to anyone also what happens when this dogmatic people throw stones to my family would also come to someone’s family but that is not my wish.

In defence of his opinions the Chairperson argued:

Those who live in Glass houses should not throw stones.

This is the topic I choose to speak my views under. In the body of this piece it shall be clear why.

People have just assumed that one was being personal. To make their lives easier let "me" be personal. In this segment of my writing I shall respond to two mails that I find disturbing. Fezeka you raise the issue of insurance but yet you are ignorant to how insurance really works. Insurance does not necessarily only cover things that have happened as a result of a mistake.

There is a supreme court of appeal's decision in the case of FNB that categorically states that even an owner's own negligence can be insured. An insurance is nothing but what learned people will call a 'particular type of contract between the insurer and the insured' so, with due respect to your person, I suggest you check your facts and get knowledge around the subject before you raise an ill founded opinion on it. If you didn't know pets can be insured as well.

On this segment of my mail I respond to your pictures and memories argument. Those are sentimental things and have no pecuniary or monetary value. Of course they shall never be retrieved if burnt, but that is not the point of my argument. People if you really want to engage me or any other person on the basis of what they have said, particularly through their writings, I suggest you read the whole of his writing instead of the bits and pieces you don't like.

Reading is a skill and indeed some may never acquire it let alone grasp it. Having said that, let me restate my position. The context in which I raised the insurance bit in my mail was to argue that I shall not be subjective in my thinking of what has happened merely because a house was burnt down. In other words I was refusing to let the fact that a house has been burnt down cloud my judgment on this matter. I still hold that view.

The fact that a house has been burnt does not and cannot hold people at ransom. Had you guys read and understood my mail in context you would have noted that the insurance bit was insignificant to what I was saying. I spent about a line or two on it anyway to further signify that it is not my main prayer. I find it disturbing then to have to respond to such an insignificant thing.

The fact that Fezeka you find it unjustifiable is problematic because you were not even suppose to ponder whether it was justifiable or not. My argument in a nutshell was: what has happened in Wakkerstroom is an inherent danger of assuming political office. Nobody has engaged me on that. I would hope this will clarify people on the insurance bit.

I now turn to the averments raised by Mr Mlambo. Again with all the respect in the world. People do not divorce things from the context in which they have arisen. You want to know if it was Ms Nkosi who hiked the rent or the ANC. But, you are missing the point here. Let me clarify you. The riots broke not simply because the rent had been hiked but because of the way the hikes were communicated. The rent had been hiked for about a month or two before the councillor and her cronies side step a direct order from the ANC in the region not to call the meeting they called.

In their wisdom they call that meeting and lack communication skills implicit not only on what they said to the masses but on how they handled the meeting itself. One thing a leader must learn before leading is that you don't go to the masses and fail to speak eloquently because the masses like it was the case in Vryheid with Mlambo-Ngcuka will boo you, if you continue shitting they are going to harm you.

But to satisfy you, let me directly answer you on your question. It was not the ANC that hiked the rent and people should be clear here, but possibly it was the district council. The district council and the ANC are two different legal personalities and that should be understood. I would assume that Ms Nkosi in her capacity as Councillor (not her capacity as ANC member) sits on that council where they should debate and discuss these issues and possibly vote on them.

Now, because Ms Nkosi sits on that council the community expect her to plead their abject poverty on matters like rent hikes, if she fails to do that then she is not executing her mandate. (Please do not misquote Fezeka I'm the one who raised the 'mandate' argument that you allegedly like, indeed, it was part of my main argument, to clearly show people not to focus on the insurance bit as if that was the only thing I said)I hope this answers you.

People a biggest cliche in politics is that 'politics is a dirty game'. In my many arguments, as published in the main stream media, I have argued that 'indeed politics is a dirty game played by ambitious man and women'. This simply means that if you are ambitious enough to accept a job in politics you must also be ambitious enough to accept the consequences inherent in that job. I'm being asked to say something about the fact that Volkrust burnt their councillor's car and closed down a road. In particular the question is how do I compare what happened in Volkrust with what happened in Wakkerstroom.

Again, people try to understand things in the context I say them, if you divorce what I say from the context I have said it under then it makes no sense. Anyway the comparison will be that whether people accept this or not Volkrust is by comparison better than Wakkerstroom and a political reasoning for this will be that the community of Volkrust are participatory in nature. Riots are a form of public participation you know. The constitution guarantees freedom to demonstrate which is a form of protest which in turn is a kind of a riot. I hope this will be understood.

I now turn to the riots issue. Let me begin by clarifying a few things. Democracy by its nature is the worst form of government. For this I refer people to the arguments raised by the 17th century philosopher by the name of Aristotle. In the modern world democracy is a worst form of government because embedded in it are protests and major social upheaval equal to what we have seen in Wakkerstroom.

People can't just accept democracy if they fail to accept its shortcomings as well. South Africa is a violent society and our history is littered with examples of that. You guys were lucky because all you know before Johannesburg had always been Wakkerstroom that was protected a great deal from that which is unfolding today. For this reason I do not expect you guys to understand. But if you are willing to learn I may refer you to some of the leading texts on the matter.

I need to make it known that my opinion by and large is an educated one. This means I always divorce myself from taking subjective views on situations. I say this because I now turn to the house vis-a-vis home argument. This is an argument raised by both Fezeka and Mr Mlambo. Nobody disputes the fact that the house was Ndlangamandla's but nobody also disputes the fact that Ms Nkosi lived there.

I find it disturbing that you guys just sit here and judge what has happened without having recourse to the real facts. What gives you authority to say the masses are idiots and stupid. Let me clarify you the context in which the house was burnt.

In the meeting, yes the meeting that led to the total distruction of the hall, council in a spat of words had said to the masses "Ningakhala kanjani ngamanzi adulayo nibe nigezela ezindishini kuhle kwenkukhu ehluthwayo, thina sigezela emabhavini kodwa asikhala ngamanzi abizayo". The masses read this to mean the bath in question was in the Ndlangamandla house and it had to be distroyed so that sizogezela ezindishini sonke njengazo izinkukhu ezihluthwayo, sizokhona phela ukukhala ngento eyodwa sonke. Now, you may want to think and even believe that the house was burnt simply because people are jealous as you all seem to suggest, but I tell you the masses were verbally incited to act in the way they did.

I suggest people get all relevant facts before sitting here to judge people. What has happened is a tragedy but it could have been managed only if the council firstly listened to the ANC's order from the region and/or consequently acted better than the way they did.

Some people may be offended every time I refer to the incompetency of the police, believe me that is not my intention, I know that a police official was assaulted but he was acting outside the scope of his duties to begin with. I also know that had the police being decisive in their actions, that is, had they got the rubber bullets earlier they would have dispersed the masses long before they even reached the Ndlangamandla residence. Because they are incompetent they failed to do that, the fact that the station commander had locked the ammunition and left is not an excuse. I would hope however that the police official who was assaulted will recover.

UBPA I await more of your accusations on this matter, I for all intents and purposes respect each and everyone's opinion, mine is to challenge that opinion where possible this is how we advance. I therefore re-assure people that what they say will not be taken personally and I hope you do the same for that which I have said.

Thulani Nkosi
Chairperson and Co-head Education Cluster at UBPA

Innocent Mlambo once again wrote:

Buyephi Ubuntu (Boile kae botho)


Those who live in Glass houses should not throw stones

Ladies and Gentlemen I really like this topic of the Chair because it support the statement that I said before when I said Motho ke motho ka batho. What I mean by this is that we shouldn’t have inner smile when something terrible happens to other human being unless others we are inhuman because what goes around also come around.

After carefully read and scrutinize your mails MaKhumalo and Mr. Nkosi I also find it is convenient to respond without wasting much value of time. Honestly speaking I find no disturbing things to both what Fezeka and I said. Having said before some of us we want other people to think as same way we think, and if that’s not happen we conclude by saying we find disturbing things to what said by those people. Good people that is not the case in life, everyone have a right to say and believe to whatever he or she believes. Even though, abanye bethu bethola intuba/ithuba yokuzibusisa ngenhlekelele enzeka kwabanye. But one said "Ungeke ubazi abantu nezinhliziyo zabo...bahlala belobiza, belobizela izinto okungezona ezabo". So that’s the challenges we come across in life and we can’t run away for them. MaKhumalo how can you judge other people if you don’t want to be judge? Let me advice you on that, if you don’t want to be judge then stop judging other
people and acting innocent. I hope that is unambiguous and understood. Nozipho I read Fezeka’s mails and they is no need to read mine because I’m the one who wrote it and I didn’t notice anyone talk about jealous who mentioned that if you are not personal?

Nozipho I’m really disappointed that you just read Mr. Chair opinions and concluded that Ms. Nkosi is wrong… judging her with something you don’t have any evidence with. Come on good people why we don’t grow up and stop judging others without any proof. But at least you have sympathy, community is totally wrong I still find no convincing suggestion why they burnt the house. Nozipho I find you mentioning things like police were carrying guns with bullets I’m not sure about that, if you are sure give me the name of the person(s) that they shoot using bullets, if it wasn’t rubber bullets. I assume you don’t mean to say this Nozipho because if it was intentionally I’m disappointed to you again “Indlu yakwaNkosi asingakhathazeki ngayo into ebizosikhathaza kakhulu
umphefumulo which wil neva b replaced, umonakalo wenzekile wenzekile
asidluleni lapho”. Who are you to judge I think you should ask yourself this question maKhumalo!!!

I’m not sure what you mean with some of the things you said Mr. chair, but my believe is that what I don’t know can’t kill me, then I won’t bother myself going thru that. The other thing is that we didn’t noticed that some of the things you wrote is insignificant, but to me all of them sound the same which mean all of them is insignificant, if not so you should take notes of the following quoting from Nozipho she said we should be carefully in whatever we are saying, so zama ukungagiyi ngethambo labanye abantu.

Mr. Chair it seems as if we are not talking with the same Wakkersrtroom here or the house that is burnt. I read what you were trying to clarify although, it totally different with what I have, so that the reason you convinced Nozipho with something that not have any evidence. I have several things that people said Ms. Nkosi said and to all of them I find no one that lead me support them with their dogmatic so-called strike. Mr. Nkosi it’s look like you know every law in this S.A so help me about this what it is that polices should do so that they should be competence? As far as I know and notice when things happens each and every strike polices called to avoid whatever bad situation that might happen, so what is it that are you trying to tell us here. What’s funny to me is that you said “the fact that the station commander had locked the ammunition and left is not an excuse”. What is the excuse then? Things won’t work according to your side
always and you should accept that by now. Lastly, I find no reason why you pretend as if you feel any sympathy with what happened to one of the "incompetence" polices that assaulted because you should be happy about that.


The Chair responded:

It is only fair that the Chairperson responds to this mail. The Chair will soberly point out a couple of points that Mr Mlambo seems to dismiss, perhaps simply because they are not consistent with a view that he wants to advance.

It must be known that the Chair has not coerced people to hold the view he holds on the matter under discussion. That being said, the Chair will however attempt to persuade people to hold his view by engaging them as robustly as possible. This is not the same as saying if you don't hold Thulani's view then you are wrong. UBPA is blessed to have individuals who are skilled in the art of reading and most importantly, understanding. Can then those people try to explain to Mr Mlambo that the Chair is prepared to debate with him, but never will he do that from the basis that if you refuse to agree with him then you are wrong.

People there is a difference, at least to the mind of the Chair that difference is clear as day and night, between saying "you have to agree with me" and saying "you don't have to agree with me but I aim to persuade and convince you to agree with me via the spoken word". Once you see that difference you will then see that the Chair is advocating for the latter rather than the former. This is proved by the fact that time and again the Chair has declared that associates at UBPA are entitled to their opinions and those opinions will be challenged on the basis of what informs them. Perhaps Mr Mlambo clearly did not understand that. UBPA, let it be known that the Chairperson does not prophecies that whatever he says is the gospel truth and this is why he encourages people to engage his views as robust as they can. Now, in any robust engagement the person who holds the challenged views must respond to demonstrate what informs his views and this is the time
when that person could either be persuaded (on the basis of the counter views) to discard his original views for those raised by his detractors. People is this clear?

Having said that and this is constant to the mail addressed to Mr Dladla, it is common cause that on the face of it, the TG/O and the Chair share the same views, whilst the DC; the DSG and Mr Mlambo share the same views. Nothing is wrong with that, but it follows from that premise that people of the same view will protect and defend each other, and again nothing is wrong there. Mr Mlambo and the DC have been defending their views collectively and now the Chair will defend the TG/O's views since they are the same views he has.

Mr Mlambo you can't tell us that you are forgetful. If you are the Chair will refer you to the first mail on this subject written by the DC, titled "Ichilo" which clearly shows the DC arguing that she feels the Ndlangamandla house was burnt down by jeolous people. So you are wrong in saying the DC didn't say that, you are further wrong in saying the TG/O is blindly following the Chair on this point. Remember we all received the mail and we read it and that is what it said, go back to it.

Mr Mlambo you happily quote the quoted phrase in "Ichilo" that has to do with abantu nezinhliziyo zabo, and the Chair will want to believe you did that fully cognisant of the context in which that phrase was penned; and the Chair will further want to believe that the DC also quoted that quote fully aware of the context it was used in. Let the Chair clarify people here on the phrase, the phrase was originally used by an IFP leader who was disgruntled by the fact that certain IFP members of parliament had crossed the floor to the ANC with their sits giving the ANC more power. So that leader was arguing that those MPs have done so because they are greedy.

Now, we all know that greed and jealousy are closely related. This further shows that indeed the DC had used this line of argument Mr Mlambo and you can't argue that she didn't. It then follows that the TG/O was well within her rights to challenge this line of argument just as much as the Chair did. People we can't honestly argue that the masses burnt down Ndlangamandla's house out of greed or jealousy for that matter. The point is clear they did that as a political statement or a political message. Before someone misquotes the Chair on this point let the Chair explains. In Khutsong there has been a lot of destruction to property since it was announced that Khutsong will be moved to the province of North West, Councillors' houses and cars were destroyed severely, can you then say the masses did so because they were jealous of the councillors' possession? Well, a right thinking person can't say that because it is clear the destruction was a political
message similar to that of Wakkerstroom. In fact the situation was far worse in Khutsong.


More, Mr Mlambo you are well within your rights to find nothing disturbing in the DC's correspondence, simply because it is your view that is being advocated there so in essence nobody expects you to find anything disturbing, but that doesn't mean there is nothing disturbing.(Mind you Mr Mlambo "disturbing" is just a polite way of saying the Chair is disagreeing with what has been said - UBPA will know that the Chair will always use polite language in his correspondence).

The Chair finds it highly disturbing even today that people continue judging the masses without having recourse to the facts and the context in which the riot arose. Perhaps other courageous associates will help us here to at least pin point where in the TG/O's (terribly written) mail does she appears to be judgmental? All the TG/O said Mr Mlambo was what the Chair said and that is we (all of us) have a right to judge the masses and even label them as idiots as you, the DSG and the DC happily do. People should really attempt to put in effort in understanding arguments raised by others so that the counter arguments you raise will go to the heart of what was said.
There is no where in the TG/O's mail where she says the DC is wrong, all she did was to warn against the unfortunate language used by some of our associates. People look, assume the TG/O and the Chair are incorrect in holding the kind of views they hold on this matter, but are they also incorrect in saying our associates should not label the masses as idiots, simply because the masses have done what they did?

Again, on the face of it it will look like the TG/O shares the similar view as the Chair on the role of the police on this matter. The TG/O will tackle the bullets part of your argument Mr Mlambo and the Chair will tell you what should have been the role of the police. In protests, riots and/or demonstrations the role of the police as officers is to keep the peace. Now, ask me how they must keep that peace.

South Africa is not a kangaroo state or a banana republic, there are laws here that spell out how must the police conduct themselves. Most of the police power comes from the South African Police Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. These two pieces of legislation clearly state that South Africa is not a police state like Zimbabwe. The Chair assumes that people already know of the famous Zimbabwean scene where the police are lashing and whipping people at the door of the police van, that can't happen in South Africa.

Mr Mlambo on the scene of a riot the police are just required to stand there observing the peace provided they were called to the scene. They are not aloud to shoot anyone, they are not aloud to talk to anyone. The law speak of the police presence in a riot situation nothing more. In Wakkerstroom clearly our incompetent police force went there with live ammunition which is against the law.

If they were called to the scene then they should have immediately brought with them the rubber bullet, not come to the scene to return back to the police station to get the rubber bullets so that they disperse the crowd. On the face of it some lawyers on the field of police negligent can even argue that the police have breached their duty of care to the community imposed on them by the above cited statutes, and that in a court of law they may be found to have acted negligently under the circumstances.

The Chair is not going to entertain your point that his views on this matter are insignificant. In fact the Chair will overlook this and assume that you actually wanted to make a better point than the one you made. You tell us that you are of the opinion that what you don't know can't hurt you, but the flip side of that argument will be that you then have no business in commenting on things you don't know, not so?

Be careful when making your points, rather attempt to think them logically first, because you don't want a person to raise a counter point that will entirely destroy your point. These are but just simple rules of debating in any forum. Mr Mlambo there is no excuse for incompetence particularly if that incompetence is displayed by people who hold high office in society like the police. But let the Chair flip the question you ask him, what is an excuse for incompetent teachers in your view?

To conclude, Mr Mlambo you don't have to believe the Chair on this point if you don't want to. The Chair finds it unfortunate that a police official was assaulted under the circumstances in which he was assaulted. No where in his correspondence did the Chair say he feels pity for such an official, all the Chair is saying is that it should not have happened. You can't honestly believe that the Chair is happy that a police official was assaulted because the Chair had nothing to gain from such an assault.

For your further engagements on this matter, the Chair awaits

Thulani Nkosi
Chairperson and Co-head of the Education Cluster at UBPA


On another issue raised by Themba Dladla member of UBPA the Chair said:

Dear UBPA

One attempts to respond to questions posted by the honourable Mr Dladla. The Chair will hope that Mr Mlambo will also respond since the questions were specifically addressed to the both of us. Collectively the questions seem to be saying there is bad blood between Mr Mlambo and the Chairperson and such bad blood may be detrimental to UBPA.

The Chair sits here today and categorically dismiss such a notion with the contempt it deserves. Mr Dladla will be asked to substantiate such a notion if he really believes it exists. All the Chairperson knows is that Mr Mlambo has been debating just like the rest of us who have contributed views and opinions on what has unfolded at Wakkerstroom.

To people who are not used to debates particularly robust and vigorous debates what has been happening between the associates of UBPA signals divisions. The Chair will want to believe that the honourable Mr Mlambo in his correspondence has done what exactly the Chair has done - engage the views and the points raised by the Chair and nothing more than that.

The Chair has read all the criticisms leveled against him to be constructive criticism. UBPA under the current Chairperson will never suppress debate nor will it oppress dissenting opinions, in fact the contrary will be encouraged. The current Chairperson will always encourage our associates to speak out whatever is on their mind. The recent debates (which can also be assessed on our blog page)prove exactly that.

So, Mr Dladla the Chair will tell you that both himself and Mr Mlambo have the best interests of UBPA at heart and disagreeing in the way they have been disagreeing clearly proves the fact that vigorous debates are a way of life at UBPA. We would however have loved to hear what is your take on the matter, but sadly you were too scared (for whatever reason) to raise your voice. As far as the Chairperson knows Mr Mlambo and himself are associates at UBPA, unless of course Mr Dladla you tell us otherwise. This is the Chairperson's position on the matter, and Mr Mlambo is encouraged to also write an opinion on the allegations that Mr Dladla has leveled against us.

The Chair will also acknowledge the receipt of the TG/O's mail on the matter. TG/O it was difficult to read what you were saying because of the writing style you chose, but your main point was well captured. To those of our associates who struggled even harder to decipher what the TG/O was saying the Chair will summarise that all the TG/O said was what gives us the right to judge and label the masses of Wakkerstroom as fools and idiots if they have done what they clearly though is correct. The TG/O is interpreting the events from a well informed position having attended at least two of those meetings that precipitated the riots.

UBPA, people are correct in holding views that what has happened is unfortunate if indeed those are their views. But nobody has a right to reduce the masses of Wakkerstroom to idiots and this is the message the Chair and the TG/O are communicating to UBPA, especially if people speak from a highly uninformed position. It is common cause that the Chair will marry the view expressed by the TG/O since that has been his view too. All this will give the SG enough material to pen down an official statement indicating the official position of UBPA on this matter.

The current Chairperson will want to believe that his legacy in the executive of UBPA will be one that is characterised by vigorous debates, constructive criticism, flowing of dissenting voices and opinions; and most importantly the growth of UBPA to become a real civil society movement that advances the improvement and development of Wakkerstroom.

The Chair hopes Mr Dladla will find this information helpful and relevant in addressing his concerns. All associates of UBPA are encouraged to speak out and tell us if they also felt that Mr Mlambo and the Chairperson are dividing UBPA, as Mr Dladla seems to suggest.

UBPA lives, UBPA lead and UBPA is relevant. One condom = one round and one round equals one condom. Hey guys, you know in India they have actually invented a ring tone that speaks exactly to the issue of condoms as the Chair so often raise them. There is a ring tone intended to remind people to always practice safe sex, by always shouting "condom-condom" when the phone rings. It is down loadable at www.condomcondom.org for those of our associates who would want to walk the talk.

Thulani Nkosi
Chairperson and Co-head of the Education Cluster at UBPA