Facebook   Twitter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    
Subscribe to Newsletter


  • Tread very carefully, Zuma warns Mulder


    Tread very carefully on the emotive issue of land reform, President Jacob Zuma warned Freedom Front Plus leader Pieter Mulder on Thursday.

    "[It] must be handled with utmost care, and not in the careless and callous manner in which Honourable Mulder handled it yesterday," he said, responding in the National Assembly to debate on his state of the nation address.

    Zuma told MPs that Mulder had stunned the nation with his "bold denial of historical facts about land dispossession".

    A day earlier, Mulder -- who serves as deputy agriculture minister in Zuma's Cabinet -- told the House that black "Bantu-speaking" people had no historical claim to 40 percent of the country.

    "Africans in particular never in the past lived in the whole of South Africa... There is sufficient proof that there were no Bantu-speaking people in the Western Cape and north western Cape," he said.

    These areas formed 40 percent of South Africa's land surface, he said.

    Mulder also took issue with the land ownership figures cited by Zuma in his address last week.

    "The president quotes in his address the department of rural development's figures on land reform.

    "According to [these], white people possessed 87 percent of the land, and the government had reached only eight percent of its 30 percent [land reform] target. I seriously differ from these figures," Mulder said.

    On Thursday, Zuma said his government had resolved to address the land reform problem through restitution, redistribution and tenure reform within the confines of the Constitution, and informed by a policy of reconciliation and nation building.

    "We felt it was not going to help the country to be emotional about the land question. We therefore urge Honourable Mulder to tread very carefully on this matter," he said.

    It was an extremely sensitive issue, and for the majority of people in the country it was "a matter of life and death".

    "That is why we have been very careful on this matter, and I don't think we should provoke emotions in this country. We shouldn't. It's wrong, it's not good leadership, no matter what your constituents may think," he said.

    Zuma then repeated: "It's not good leadership."

    He said the government had introduced a green paper on land reform because it wanted to handle the matter responsibly.

    A lesson it had learned over the years was that the process of acquiring and redistributing a particular piece of land was often lengthy.

    "And this escalates the cost of redistribution because the former owner stops [investing] in the land. Many of the farms are therefore in a poor state at the time of acquisition, with very low productivity."

    Zuma noted the centenary of the 1913 Land Act was only a matter of months away.

    "It is in the interests of all South Africans, black and white, and in the interests of national reconciliation that we proceed... guided by the Constitution.

    He was interrupted at this point in his address by a question from Freedom Front Plus MP Pieter Groenewald.

    "Mr President, do you think it is responsible leadership if some leaders in the ANC [are] constantly telling white people that they've stolen the land and thereby are thieves? Is that responsible leadership?" Groenewald wanted to know.

    Responding through the Speaker, Zuma replied: "Honourable Speaker, I am sure the Honourable Member does not want me to get to the land question; how the land happened to be in the hands of the minority in this country.

    "I have said we are dealing with this matter responsibly. That does not change the facts of history, but it says we are a responsible leadership today."

    His response was greeted with applause from ruling-party benches.
    Comments 60 Comments
    1. darkevil's Avatar
      darkevil -
      Another issue with regards to land...is that there are elements within government and some of the local populace that believe whites don't belong in Africa.

      Africa for Africans.

      The fact that some people have land irrespective having been purchase through legitimate means is irrelevant given the mindset.

      One wonder why the government has not set their eyes on some of the lucrative wine farms in the western cape?
    1. Hemps's Avatar
      Hemps -
      One wonder why the government has not set their eyes on some of the lucrative wine farms in the western cape?
      When the tax money dries up they will start looking elsewhere I assure you, at the moment they are after the quick millions.
    1. Sinbad's Avatar
      Sinbad -
      Where else in the world are people given back land their ancestors lost in a war/dispute/etc? YOU LOST THE GAME. You can't undo - there is no quicksave. Move the hell on and make this country as great as it can be.
    1. BLIXEMPIE's Avatar
      BLIXEMPIE -
      Ah can Zuma not just get a heart attack or something? Faark he is a moron.
    1. czc's Avatar
      czc -
      I thought government owns most of the land in this country?
    1. waynegohl's Avatar
      waynegohl -
      The majority want the minorities land that's all it is.
    1. Apache's Avatar
      Apache -
      Quote Originally Posted by czc View Post
      I thought government owns most of the land in this country?
      Exactly this. But why share your land when you can share someone else's out?
    1. TheHiveMind's Avatar
      TheHiveMind -
      Quote Originally Posted by Aqua_lung View Post
      Mulder is partly correct but I would emphasize that SA originally belongs to the Khoi-san, I still think he is a royal idiot.
      Not anymore. They lost. That's life. That's nature. No points for trying.
    1. ToxicBunny's Avatar
      ToxicBunny -
      Quote Originally Posted by TheHiveMind View Post
      Not anymore. They lost. That's life. That's nature. No points for trying.
      ahhh so you're advocating selectively applying the "you lost, sorry you can't have it back" philosophy then?
    1. WilD_CaT's Avatar
      WilD_CaT -
      Quote Originally Posted by czc View Post
      I thought government owns most of the land in this country?
      Not entirely correct, but I understand what you meant...

      The government is the largest land owner, it doesn't own a majority share of the land.
    1. WilD_CaT's Avatar
      WilD_CaT -
      Quote Originally Posted by B.O.F.H. View Post
      ahhh so you're advocating selectively applying the "you lost, sorry you can't have it back" philosophy then?
      Ya I agree. Next thing they'll take all his land and use the same argument...
    1. TJ99's Avatar
      TJ99 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Sinbad View Post
      Move the hell on and make this country as great as it can be.
      Bladdy logical tendencies again.

      But as you rightly said, imagine if they tried this nonsense in Europe, or Asia even. (Meaning trying to talk about "original inhabitants")
    1. waynegohl's Avatar
      waynegohl -
      You watch, once JZ gets baited to discuss how the minority of this country got the land he would want his ministers of education to change the history books to reflect that too.
    1. WilD_CaT's Avatar
      WilD_CaT -
      I think Mulder's point was to fight against the big land reform rhetoric.

      The basis of the land reform idea is justice, not all land occupied by whites was taken from blacks, and many of those tribes who did lose land to whites, took that land from other tribes in the first place.

      So justice, is not giving land to the people who occupied it before the whites, but the "rightful" owners.

      In a South African context, the bantu tribes are not the "original" inhabitants of a lot of the land, but the koi/San and Pygmies (who moved north).

      Hell, the Pedi's, Juju's ancestors, are said to have settled in their ancestral land around 1650 I believe. I also believe Van Reebeck landed in 1652...so I think it's difficult to make the case that the land cannot justifiably belong to any whites without asking if it belongs legitimately to any of the people who are claiming ownership. (2 years is not really that big of a difference...)

      Secondly, when the Voortrekkers moved inland, they found fast areas of land unnoccupied by tribes. This was largely due to the various tribal wars of the time, refered to as the "difaqane" I believe. So they travelled, found lots of land unowned, and settled in. A few years later the tribes people tried to return and found their land occupied.

      I think its difficult to just blame "whites" for this fact, which is what they are doing.

      Anyways, instead of laying some blame at Shaka's feet, we call an airport after him.

      Its smacks of hypocracy.
    1. Sherbang's Avatar
      Sherbang -
      I don't understand what difference it makes who was here first, seriously, it's a non issue. Point is that for most of the last 100 years it was illegal for blacks to own land. This created a situation which needs to be addressed. This focusing on who was here first is irrelevant - it's a strawman argument
    1. OrbitalDawn's Avatar
      OrbitalDawn -
      Quote Originally Posted by WilD_CaT View Post
      I think Mulder's point was to fight against the big land reform rhetoric.

      The basis of the land reform idea is justice, not all land occupied by whites was taken from blacks, and many of those tribes who did lose land to whites, took that land from other tribes in the first place.

      So justice, is not giving land to the people who occupied it before the whites, but the "rightful" owners.

      In a South African context, the bantu tribes are not the "original" inhabitants of a lot of the land, but the koi/San and Pygmies (who moved north).

      Hell, the Pedi's, Juju's ancestors, are said to have settled in their ancestral land around 1650 I believe. I also believe Van Reebeck landed in 1652...so I think it's difficult to make the case that the land cannot justifiably belong to any whites without asking if it belongs legitimately to any of the people who are claiming ownership. (2 years is not really that big of a difference...)

      Secondly, when the Voortrekkers moved inland, they found fast areas of land unnoccupied by tribes. This was largely due to the various tribal wars of the time, refered to as the "difaqane" I believe. So they travelled, found lots of land unowned, and settled in. A few years later the tribes people tried to return and found their land occupied.

      I think its difficult to just blame "whites" for this fact, which is what they are doing.

      Anyways, instead of laying some blame at Shaka's feet, we call an airport after him.

      Its smacks of hypocracy.
      Large areas of the land found by the voortrekkers were uninhabited because it wasn't particularly fertile and inhospitable. The areas now known as Free State and Gauteng (or Transvaal) were largely empty for this reason. The Bantu tribes moved into the areas now known as KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape, because those areas had the most fertile land, and the most rainfall, providing them with the resources for their subsistence farming endeavours. They've lived there for hundreds of years and no one forced them to move there. Only after gold and diamonds were found in the Transvaal and the mines started going up did they start migrating there in search of work. Again, no one forced them.

      Quote Originally Posted by joelus View Post
      I don't understand what difference it makes who was here first, seriously, it's a non issue. Point is that for most of the last 100 years it was illegal for blacks to own land. This created a situation which needs to be addressed. This focusing on who was here first is irrelevant - it's a strawman argument
      Correction: it should be a non-issue, but unfortunately it isn't. You're quite correct, though, it does need to be addressed. The problem is, as usual, with implementation. Tell me, did you or your family steal anyone's land? No one I know ever did, they bought it, like everything else they own. That's how you fix this issue in the long-run, by fixing the education system, unemployment and skills development. There's nothing stopping black people from buying land (or shares in companies), anywhere they wish. Government has to create a framework and system wherein everyone has an equal chance of accessing quality education, so that they can make a success of their own lives, allowing them to purchase all the land they want. Rewriting history, chasing people off land they legitimately bought, or making them feel like criminals is no way to address the issue.
    1. WilD_CaT's Avatar
      WilD_CaT -
      Quote Originally Posted by joelus View Post
      I don't understand what difference it makes who was here first, seriously, it's a non issue. Point is that for most of the last 100 years it was illegal for blacks to own land. This created a situation which needs to be addressed. This focusing on who was here first is irrelevant - it's a strawman argument
      If the problem was that it was illegal for them to own land, then the solution would be to allow them to own landand not to remove land from others.

      It all comes down to property rights. Hell, I could argue under "Bantu" rule it was illegal for the Koi-San to own land. If they did, impi warriors came to kill them. I feel this created a situation which needs to be addressed too.

      The land must go to the legitimate owners, which is a whom. If it does not, then your argument becomes, it was illegal for black people to own land, and so we are going to take land willy nilly from whites, regardless of how they obtained it, it they are legitimate owners or not and force them off the land to give to a few black people, regardless if those people have no claim what so ever to the land. (Then atleast the who wouldn't matter).

      Point is, it does matter who.
    1. Sly21C's Avatar
      Sly21C -
      So the racist government enacted the native land act in 1913, which dispossessed land from black people. It was all good for the minority for decades and decades. Now that the people who were dispossessed want their land back their descendants such as Mulder and his supporters are saying the land originally belongs to the Khoisan people. So what you guys and Mulder are otherwise saying is that land was stolen from blacks in 1913 so as to give it back to the Khoisan? Obviously that is not true. If it is true, why didn't Mulder's constituents (thieves) hand over land back to the khoisan from 1913 until 1994? (That's 81 years by the way).

      Mulder and his constituents have basically reaffirmed to president Zuma and the whole country that they will not participate in land redistribution and land reform. He is basically saying that all those black people whose land was illegally taken from them mustn't get their land back because the Khoisan were the original inhabitants of the whole of South Africa. In other words Mulder and his supporters in this forum are trying to take the moral high ground. It is actually pathetic distorting an issue like this.

      If FF+, AWB and the the DA will continue telling the country (not in so many words) that land redistribution shouldn't happen in the first place then Malema and the ANCYL will eventually achieve their objective. In the long term, the ANCYL's expropriation of land without compensation policy proposal will correct the wrongs of the past and give land back to people who had their land stolen from them especially after the 191 Land Act. In the short term this country will suffer like the Zimbabweans did from the year 2000. The following is an article that illustrates noticeable success in Mugabe's land grabs http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/zimbabw...pels-the-myths (watch the video also)

      If Mulder and his farmers don't play ball and redistribute land, if they continue to try distort history and try to divert attention away from core issues then the expropriation of land without compensation WILL happen.
    1. Zenbaas's Avatar
      Zenbaas -
      Quote Originally Posted by Sly21C View Post
      So the racist government enacted the native land act in 1913, which dispossessed land from black people. It was all good for the minority for decades and decades. Now that the people who were dispossessed want their land back their descendants such as Mulder and his supporters are saying the land originally belongs to the Khoisan people. So what you guys and Mulder are otherwise saying is that land was stolen from blacks in 1913 so as to give it back to the Khoisan? Obviously that is not true. If it is true, why didn't Mulder's constituents (thieves) hand over land back to the khoisan from 1913 until 1994? (That's 81 years by the way).

      Mulder and his constituents have basically reaffirmed to president Zuma and the whole country that they will not participate in land redistribution and land reform. He is basically saying that all those black people whose land was illegally taken from them mustn't get their land back because the Khoisan were the original inhabitants of the whole of South Africa. In other words Mulder and his supporters in this forum are trying to take the moral high ground. It is actually pathetic distorting an issue like this.

      If FF+, AWB and the the DA will continue telling the country (not in so many words) that land redistribution shouldn't happen in the first place then Malema and the ANCYL will eventually achieve their objective. In the long term, the ANCYL's expropriation of land without compensation policy proposal will correct the wrongs of the past and give land back to people who had their land stolen from them especially after the 191 Land Act. In the short term this country will suffer like the Zimbabweans did from the year 2000. The following is an article that illustrates noticeable success in Mugabe's land grabs http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/zimbabw...pels-the-myths (watch the video also)

      If Mulder and his farmers don't play ball and redistribute land, if they continue to try distort history and try to divert attention away from core issues then the expropriation of land without compensation WILL happen.
    1. Flanders's Avatar
      Flanders -
      Quote Originally Posted by Zenbaas View Post
      Let me quote that for extra effect.

      Back to your cryptic "whites must play ball" hey, Sly? In other words "give for free".