Blog

Eskom will be receiving a further R59bn from Treasury over the next two years to stay afloat, Finance Minister Tito Mboweni announced on Tuesday.

This lifeline comes on top of the R23bn annual inunction to the cash strapped power utility announced in February. The special appropriation bill will give Eskom R26bn in the 2019/2020 financial year with a further R33bn, the following year. Eskom’s precarious financial state threatens to swamp the country with close to R500bn in debt.

The power utility’s chairperson Jabu Mabuza who took office in 2018 described it as the “main theatre where corruption and state capture was taking place”. During Mboweni’s address on Tuesday, he too had some choice words about Eskom and other struggling state-owned enterprises.

But just how much is R59bn? Here’s what it could have bought:

1. 600 new trains 

The Passenger Rail Agency (Prasa) signed a contract with newly formed consortium Gibela in 2013 to modernise its outdated rolling stock with 600 new trains, 580 to be produced in SA and 20 in Brazil. The price tag was R59bn including VAT and excluding inflation. This is not to be confused with the controversial Swifambo contract which landed a R3.5bn contract to deliver “too tall” trains.

2. Social and housing grants for one month (with some change)

Mboweni increased the budget for social and housing grants to R567bn in February. More than 17 million of the most vulnerable South Africans rely on these monthly pay-outs for their pensions, child support and disability allowances. The monthly bill for government comes to R47bn.

3. 56 state of the art schools

Menzi Primary School in Tsakane informal settlement east of Johannesburg was officially opened by Gauteng Premier David Makhura in January, having cost R105m to build. The school has room for just over 1000 learners from Grade R to Grade 7. It has 33 smart classrooms, two science laboratories, a library, IT control rooms, a nutrition centre, a dining hall, five courtyards, sports facilities and a school hall.

4. Free higher education for three years

In February 2018, then-finance minister Malusi Gigaba added R57bn for the next three years, to fund university students who come from households earning less than R350 000 per year. This followed widespread protests against the high costs of tertiary education in 2015 and 2016 and several campuses shut their doors for weeks. Zuma announced free higher education in a surprise move, in December 2017, ahead of the ANC’s pivotal conference.

5. Almost 2X eToll debt

The issue has divided the ANC and has caused widespread unhappiness among South Africans. National Treasury told the National Council of Provinces earlier this year that scrapping eTolls will cost the state R11.2bn in unguaranteed debt, on top of the current R19bn in guaranteed debt.

Bonus: 23 Nkandlas

Containing a fire pool, a chicken run and upgrades to a tuckshop, the hefty price tag for security upgrades to former president Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead came to R246m. Following a damning report by then public protector Thuli Madonsela in 2014 and various legal battles, he took out a second home loan in 2016 to repay R7.8m to the public purse.

Article from the Rational Standard
By:Nicholas Woode-Smith

Expropriation without compensation (EWC) isn’t an abstract threat, always too far away to matter and only affecting the people you don’t care about. It is very, and most unfortunately, real and present.

With Parliament agreeing to review section 25 of the Constitution, we aren’t yet facing expropriation without compensation, but we are faced with the fact that our legislators are at least predisposed towards eliminating private property rights in South Africa. If or when section 25 is amended, the government will be allowed to seize private property without giving any compensation or being required to negotiate with the victims.

But even without amending the Constitution, plans have already been revealed of how the ANC will proceed with mass land-theft.

This disastrous policy has been pushed forward by the African National Congress (ANC), backed by the ANC-in-exile, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). This is not just some idle support of a controversial policy, however. At the risk of sounding alarmist – you should be alarmed – the policy of expropriation without compensation is socially, politically and economically disastrous.

Yet, so many South Africans are apathetic. At best, they talk about expropriation without compensation in detached whispers, as if discussing Crimea. It isn’t something that one wants to acknowledge as happening to them. In fact, a lot of people, including land owners, have denied the threat of expropriation without compensation, thinking that it will only affect rural white farmers.

But society ripples. It won’t just affect white farmers. This policy will have dire consequences for all of South Africa. The following, to drive home the severity of EWC, are just a few:

1. Food prices will rise, if food doesn’t just run out

Many in the EFF and ANC have this romantic notion around small-scale, peasant style farming. A big part of the campaign to pass EWC is to, allegedly, redistribute farmland to create jobs for black people who were oppressed during Apartheid. EWC, they argue, is the fast-track to effective land reform that will bolster the wealth of the previously impoverished.

Yet, small-scale farming and even large-scale farming is not the path to prosperity. It is more often a money-sink, hardly seeing profits for decades. Farming is a skill and capital-intensive industry. Take it away from the current farmers, and you are left with farmers without the skill or capital to keep it going. And this isn’t racism. If a non-farming white person was given a farm, they would fail just as much as a non-farming black person.

We shouldn’t be playing around with food security. Already South Africa’s farming industry has suffered under threats of EWC and ever-increasing farm attacks. This is not something you merely read about in the news.

When farmers suffer, when the next harvest is uncertain, when the entire livelihoods and properties of the food producer is under threat, food security suffers. And at best, the price of food rises to exorbitant amounts, or we become completely reliant on foreign imports (which the government likes to restrict and heavily tax, making it expensive again). And at worst, we starve.

Venezuela and Zimbabwe are modern-day examples of the failures of socialism in achieving food security. The 20^th century is rife with even more examples of how collectivisation, land reform and expropriation cause mass starvation. EWC will cause similar symptoms.

Succinctly: If you don’t want to starve or spend all your money on food, then oppose EWC.

2. No property will be safe

The proposed Expropriation Bill doesn’t only affect white-owned farms. It allows the state to seize anything. That means urban properties, holiday homes, apartment blocks. And not just landed property. EWC isn’t just about land reform. It is about instituting total collectivisation over the country. The Expropriation Bill allows the state to seize intellectual property, stocks, pensions… anything.

And there will be no negotiations. No compensation.

If you own stuff, and want to keep it, you need to oppose EWC.

3. Your wealth is at risk

If EWC is instated, the economy will crash. This doesn’t only affect the rich stockbrokers and business owners. This affects the poorest beggar, every professional, children in schools – everyone. World Wars have started over economic situations less dire than South Africa today. We have untold numbers of people living in poverty, without any opportunities. EWC will remove the few opportunities we have.

As trust in property rights deteriorates, investors will leave. Capital will flood out of the country. Banks will lose billions. And no, the “evil” banker doesn’t suffer. That’s your money they’re losing. Your savings. But it won’t be their fault. It will be yours for not doing everything within your power to stop EWC from happening.

A macroeconomic impact assessment of EWC from the Gordon Institute of Business Science states:

“It makes no sense to attempt the implementation of land reform policies that have proven over and over again to exercise a destructive influence on the economy and threaten the livelihoods of the most vulnerable members of society — those that cannot sell their skills in other jurisdictions.”

And as EWC becomes another money-sink, the state will raise more taxes, enforce more regulations, and take more and more of your already-dwindling cash.

The economy will fail with EWC. This is not up for debate anymore. It is a certainty, and those arguing that it will not harm the economy are the worst kind of liars and useful idiots. When the economy fails, everyone will suffer.

4. Your favourite brands will disappear

If the loss of food, your stuff and your financial well-being aren’t convincing enough, then I must appeal to your consumerism. As EWC rips apart property rights and the economy, companies whose products you enjoy will leave the country. This goes for fast-food chains, restaurants, cell phone brands, access to designer gear, access to private security and all other forms of gadgets and conveniences.

Companies that can leave, will, because they don’t want to risk losing their stuff. And because they reasonably don’t want to share a huge part of their profit-pie with a government run by gangsters.

Conclusion

Most South Africans don’t support EWC. But they don’t need to. They just need to remain silent. Revolutions are won by stubborn and violent minorities. The pro-EWC factions in South Africa will stop at nothing to pass their bizarre pseudo-religious ideas – even at the expense of our hard-won rights, our freedom, our prosperity and our lives.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This saying has been commonly attributed to Edmund Burke.

It is way past time for more South Africans to take a popular stand against an unacceptable policy. I am not calling for mass protest or picketing. I’ve never found those to be effective. But there are many ways you can help oppose EWC.

From writing to your legislators, holding your political party accountable, writing articles for the media, donating to civil society organisations like the Free Market Foundation, Institute of Race Relations, and AfriForum. Help get the word out about this policy that many South Africans aren’t aware of or care about. Share Rational Standard content on social media. Tell your friends and family.

Don’t be afraid to be vociferous. Facts are on the side of those who oppose EWC. And it is time we stop apologising for it. It is time we get busy and stop the oncoming destruction of South Africa.

Original article link:

4 Ways Expropriation Without Compensation Will Affect You

The minister also said the debt and restructuring of Eskom will need to be addressed.

Article from IOL

Cape Town – The City of Cape Town will soon put out a draft by-law to protect its precious coastline from encroachment, poaching activities and other damaging actions.

In a statement, the City said it would soon publicise the draft Coastal By-law for public participation, with the intention being to “better protect and manage our coastline, which is one of Cape Town’s most important and valued assets”.

“Cape Town is synonymous with rolling waves, rocky shores, dolphins, whales, and sunsets on pristine beaches,” said the City of Cape Town’s Mayoral Committee Member for Spatial Planning and Environment, Marian Nieuwoudt.

“Our coastline draws millions of tourists and local visitors every year; it is central to our identity, and gives us a sense of place and pride.

“We also cannot overestimate the importance of the coast to our local economy. It is a public asset that must be preserved and protected for current and future generations.

“The draft by-law will assist us to better manage our coastline and enable law enforcement of activities that may have a damaging impact on the coastal environment.”

The draft by-law will be available for public comment from 1 August until 2 September, 2019. The City will, during this time, also host eight public hearings across Cape Town where residents can ask questions, and comment.

The draft by-law will be applicable to the coastal zone, which covers the seashore, the coastal waters and the environment on, in, under and above the coastal zone.

The proposed by-law addresses the following:

– poaching, or illegal fishing

–  harvesting, or removal of vegetation

– removal of sand, pebbles, rocks, shells, and kelp

–  removal of or damage to indigenous coastal vegetation

–  littering

– pollution and dumping

– encroachment of private property into the coastal environment

– measures to remove encroachments, and rehabilitate affected land

– possession or consumption of liquor or drugs

– hawking or doing business without authorisation

– launching of vessels

Vissuing of fines for contraventions

“One of the most important aspects of the proposed by-law is that it will give the City the legislative powers to enforce the public’s right to access and enjoy our beaches and sea.

“Some residents are claiming the beaches or parcels of land in front of their properties as their own private areas by either extending their homes or gardens, sinking swimming pools, or building walkways with ‘no-access’ signs on it. Our coastline belongs to all South Africans and the by-law will be used to entrench this right,” said Nieuwoudt.

The City added that the by-law will be a legislative tool to entrench and enforce the public’s right to freely access and enjoy the coastline; ensure the sustainable use and development of the coastal area; promote the protection of the natural environment of the coastal zone; manage and promote public access to beaches and beach areas; prevent anti-social behaviour on beaches and beach areas; and manage access to and the use of public amenities on the beach and beach areas.

It is also intended to enable better regulation, protection and governance of the coastline as a sensitive and economically valuable asset, and to ensure measures are taken to rehabilitate or correct actions that have a damaging impact on the coastal environment.

Article from IOL

Cape Town – The City of Cape Town is facing a groundswell of opposition to its increase of the electricity tariff and surcharge, a move which has been labeled as unconstitutional.

The tariff increase and surcharge has sparked outrage from cash-strapped residents and has lead a civic group, a concerned resident and energy expert to take separate action to put pressure on the city and the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) to decrease costs.

The recent increase in electricity tariffs and the levy has seen the cost of electricity rise astronomically, with some residents paying up to 30% more than the 8.8% intended.

Civic organisation STOP COCT, which is spearheading a demand for a public hearing by Nersa, said the recent evaluations of properties had seen some residents slapped with high electricity bills.

Spokesperson Sandra Dickson said: “STOP COCT has received many complaints. People are upset about this.”

Dickson accused the city of not being transparent in the way it set the tariffs, as required by the law.

In July last year, the city introduced a surcharge of R150 for properties with prepaid meters and valued at more than R1 million, as well as those properties worth more than R400 000 with no prepaid meters.

This year, the surcharge was increased to R163.50.

In addition to the surcharge, the city added another surcharge of a flat rate of 10% to the electricity tariffs.

Nersa is now investigating the surcharge.

The city also stopped giving free units of electricity to customers whose monthly usage surpassed 450 units over a period of 12 months.

During the past three years, residents rejected proposed electricity and water rate increases during public participation hearings, but their concerns were ignored as the city implemented increases.

In 2017, then mayor Patricia de Lille postponed the increase after residents raised concerns.

An “Electricity tariffs must fall” has campaign also been launched by a concerned resident to force Premier Alan Winde, the city and mayor Dan Plato to take action.

Two days after its launch, close to 1900 people had supported the petition.

Nersa said it approved the city’s tariff increase application for the period July 1, 2019-June 30, 2020.

The city, according to Nersa, had applied for an average tariff increase of 11.30%.

But the city was adamant that it had only received “provisional approval and had yet to receive a formal, signed letter.

Despite this, it went ahead and implemented the tariff increase.

In addition, it also added a surcharge of 10% and a CPI inflation rate, and claimed that the money derived would be transferred to the rates account.

“In essence, since 2016, the tariffs have been higher than those approved by Nersa. In 2018, the real increase was about 15 to 16%. and now with properties re-evaluated, some residents have found that their accounts have increased by up to 30%,” said Dickson.

The residents now want Nersa to intervene. The call for the public hearing follows a similar one Nersa had with Tshwane residents who were unhappy about the implementation of a surcharge which the regulator had not approved.

Energy expert Ted Blom was looking into taking up the matter on behalf of dissatisfied customers. He believed the requirement that customers should lodge a dispute with their supplier, who in turn would refer the matter to Nersa, would dissuade many from taking action against the city.

Blom said municipalities should provide electricity at cost and should not include mark-ups.

“Both Tshwane and the City of Cape Town increased the fixed cost, which is unfair to residents and to non-users. That’s unconstitutional and against the National Development Plan.” Deputy mayor and mayoral committee member for finance Ian Nielson said the city followed “all the necessary” legal processes, including public participation.

Some residents took to social media to vent their dissatisfaction with the surcharge and tariff increase, while others also questioned the deduction of monies to off-set rates arrears from electricity purchases.