Dishonourable, disorderly MPs degrade parliamentary debate
President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered his usual delusionary, well-worn-out, clichéd and self-congratulatory speech when replying to the presidential budget vote debate last week. We have been subjected countless times to this repetitive rhetoric from the president.
His oratorical performances, flawed as they are with the same old, same old, undeliverable and unaffordable promises, plans and predictions, have become redundant. They do little to contribute to real national political, social and economic progress or provide the kind of inspirational leadership so desperately needed from a president of our ailing country.
However, the boorish conduct of some “honourable” members during the debate on the vote was deplorable, particularly from the EFF and MK parties. The proceedings resembled a raucous, puerile Punch and Judy show.
Given that the political, social and economic fabric of our society is in danger of being left in tatters, one would have thought MPs from all parties would behave with a level of gravitas in parliament and avoid petulant, degrading and delinquent conduct that is dishonourable and disorderly.
Shouting insults and rudely, persistently and pointlessly interrupting the speaker of the House, the presiding chairs and the speakers themselves displayed a buffoonery usually associated with clowns at a circus.
These MPs, funded as they are by taxpayers, should be charged with tax abuse and stripped of their rights to be referred to as “honourable” members for deliberately delaying, disrupting and frustrating the important processes and business of parliament.
It is embarrassing enough to have our National Assembly variously located in a parking lot and other venues rather than the historic parliamentary precinct, but to also have these temporary structures occupied is another matter. These self-important hooligans are an insult to all South Africans ― especially those who are homeless, unemployed and denied the most basic of services. In other words, the very same people these dishonourable parliamentarians profess to represent.
David Gant
Kenilworth
Farmers left vulnerable as insurers refuse flood coverage
Stella Mapenzauswa’s article discussed why South African farmers fail to take out adequate insurance (“Weather disasters lay bare insurance issues for farmers”, June 8). But it omitted a fundamental issue: many insurers and underwriters, having paid out claims, refuse to insure those risks again.
I have a small fruit farm in the Western Cape which, with many others, suffered much damage in the floods of 2023. As always, my insurer whittled down my claim for various reasons, eventually paying out about half of it. It then said it would no longer insure me against flood damage.
Initially I thought it was just punishing me for having had the audacity to claim for risks for which I have paid premiums for 30 years, but I then learnt, after contacting at least 10 brokers and insurers, that insurers countrywide are refusing to provide flood damage cover.
There is not much use in urging farmers to take out insurance for floods when no insurer will cover us. If the government were to provide some sort of cover for major risks that insurers have refused, such as flood damage to agriculture, it would be far more useful than the present Sasria cover for riots and political unrest (“Steenhuisen urges swift rollout of Sasria-style disaster insurance for farmers”, May 18).
Perhaps the admirable Wandile Sihlobo of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, who regularly talks sense in your columns, can take this up. But I won’t be holding my breath.
Jonathan Schrire
Kenilworth
Foot-and-mouth crisis will cost the DA votes
While John Steenhuisen was handed a poisoned chalice when he took over the department of agriculture, he has now been in this position for a while and has still gone against everything his party stands for ― efficient government with little red tape, complete transparency, private sector partnership and decentralised government.
Instead, he has wanted total, exclusive control in controlling foot-and-mouth disease without the trained or dedicated manpower to do the job (“State has secured 13.5-million vaccine doses to fight foot-and-mouth disease”, June 1).
I recently had the unpleasant experience of asking the head of the veterinary department in the southern Free State what the protocol was to get cattle vaccinated after the recent court judgment. The reply from the person designated to control this disease was: “I don’t know, phone so and so.”
The DA deserves to lose thousands of votes over this catastrophe and Steenhuisen should be fired by the party. Most South Africans have no idea how bad things are nor the devastation caused by Steenhuisen’s intransigence ― so much so that a suicide hotline has been set up for desperate farmers.
I have voted for the DA for 25 years, but not this time.
Charles Cadman
Bloemfontein
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.