SA shows good governance - WB

[sox63]

And you base this opinion on what exactly?

My past experiance on this forum leads me to believe when there is study done that some forumites don't believe/agree with the results, they tend to question the credibility of said study.

 

[icyrus]

My past experiance on this forum leads me to believe when there is study done that some forumites don't believe/agree with the results, they tend to question the credibility of said study.

Is that not human nature?

Still, I would like to hear Jozi101's response.

 

[xtermin8or]

Oh.. so just because its the WB that it must be right?...

Intriguing.... anyway..

My assumption is based on me actually LIVING in this country, and dealing with this guavamint instead of living in washington and ASKING how things are...

I did not say they are right beyond a reasonable doubt, just saying that there opinion is more credible than your perception.

And as yet, you have given absolutely no credible argument that the Government is now more corrupt than they were before

 

[ToxicBunny]

Why is their opinion more credible than mine?...

I just think the guavamint is more corrupt now due to all these HUGE bee deals going through. its an opinion nothing more.

 

[xtermin8or]

Suppose we could argue we've had good governance for 13 years (compare bob or other african elections, for instance Nigeria.) Problem is Mbeki supports bob and nigeria (and sudan!) Yes, good governance (it could be so much worse.) But consider if this is good then it should be so much better (highest murder, rape, bank robberies, theft, corruption, non-delivery) do not equate to good governance in many books.

Well one would have to consider the facts on the other side as well, a number of free and fair elections, politically stable country, more people have access to services than before, strong bilateral and multi-lateral relations, respected mediation abilities, a growing economy.

Good Governance, I say indeed so

 

[xtermin8or]

Why is their opinion more credible than mine?...

I just think the guavamint is more corrupt now due to all these HUGE bee deals going through. its an opinion nothing more.

But since you have put your opinion out there, you should be prepared to have it tested, and as yet you have not shown any basis for anyone to buy into your opinion, your opinion has effectively failed the test, and has been shown to be a false perception.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Ok... Then I point you to the small number of "previously disadvantaged" people who benefit from these BEE deals.... because they're "struggle heros".. or the incompetent morons in guavamint because of the same "credential"...

Those are not false perceptions, they're reality....

 

[xtermin8or]

Ok... Then I point you to the small number of "previously disadvantaged" people who benefit from these BEE deals.... because they're "struggle heros".. or the incompetent morons in guavamint because of the same "credential"...

Those are not false perceptions, they're reality....

What you don't seem to understand is that you can not show that the Government has become progressively more corrupt, while the WB has shown through whatever measure that there has been an improvement in good governance. Simple, no

Give up, you've lost this round

 

[ToxicBunny]

What is their measure... until they explain it in detail.. its not acceptable as it is pure statistics and they're about as reliable as manto or ivy.

 

[xtermin8or]

What is their measure... until they explain it in detail.. its not acceptable as it is pure statistics and they're about as reliable as manto or ivy.

There are definite measures that were used, just because you heard they had no measures, doesn't mean they didn't, read before you post. Feel free to find and read the full volume

The full WGI volume, called “Governance Matters VI,” shows how the six aggregate indicators are constructed. They are based on 33 individual data sources and hundreds of variables, capturing the views on governance of tens of thousands household and firm survey respondents, as well as hundreds of nongovernment organizations and public sector experts, and commercial business information providers worldwide.

The indicators measure Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Major Violence and Terror, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption.

The new 2007 volume and report, as well as the revamped and interactive website, showcases the full WGI dataset, covering 212 countries and territories from 1996 to 2006.

That my friend, still makes them more reliable than you.

It's very easy to make statements about issues, but proving them proves to be rather more difficult, and many members of this forum, including yourself, would rather repeat the statement over and over, in the hope that someone eventually believes it, luckily we are all not that gullible

 

[Tassidar]

@Toxicbunny, while you may privately disagree with this report. It is not enough to dispute it publicly without evidence. The most you can say is that you have insufficient information to pass comment.

This debate has also been focusing on the government only, but good governance also applies to private companies. Most companies in South Africa are highly aware of the principles of good governance (as defined in the King II Report), and have taken action to ensure these principles are implemented.

On the government debate, here is a crude analysis that I am going to use to try to verify or dispute the results. Obviously the first sign of corruption should be in the auditor's report. So, by looking at the number of clean audits from year to year, we should be able to get a rough benchmark (I am aware of many flaws in this method, I make no apologies, and fellow forumites are welcome to refine this).


2005/06

32 out of the 34 national departments and public entities to receive separate allocations from the national budget have tabled their annual reports for the 2005/06 financial year. Each annual report contains an opinion from the Auditor-General on how that institution has managed its finances. The AG’s findings for 2005/06 were as follows:

Only three departments received ‘Clean’ reports; 18 entities had ‘Emphasis of Matter’ highlighted by the A-G; and 11 entities received ‘Qualifications’ or a ‘Disclaimer’ of opinion.

Entities that receive Qualified reports, Adverse Opinions or a Disclaimer from the Auditor-General are deemed to be in a state of financial disarray and mismanagement.

Entities that receive a report with an Emphasis of Matter are deemed to have failed to comply with their agreed programme of action or statutory requirements.

This is a decidedly worse performance than last year, when only seven departments received a qualification or disclaimer. Every department or entity that received a qualification from the A-G last year, did so again this year.

http://www.da.org.za/da/Site/Eng/campaigns/auditOutcomes_2005-06.asp

3 / 32 = 9.375%

Govt report 'a bleak picture'
12/07/2007 16:51 - (SA)

Johannesburg - The outcome of government departments' annual financial reports painted a bleak picture, said auditor-general Terrence Nombembe at the Johannesburg Press Club on Thursday.

In the 2005/'06 report, only 12% cent of government departments had clean audit opinions, 4% at provincial level, and there was no clean audit opinion in local government so far.

"These trends have an impact of diminishing confidence the public has in the administration of accounts," Nombembe said.

He attributed these outcomes to shortage of skills, lack of ability in business processes and leadership, and poor governance.

Nombembe said strong co-ordination in government clusters was needed to solve the problem.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2146067,00.html

This means that the percentage of clean audits has increased from 9% - 12%, an improvement, agreeing with Xterminator's view.

So while you might say the level of corruption is shocking, it is showing an improvement.

 

[Ricard]

3% decrease in corruption... Thats just the Shaik family being arrested :=)

 

[Shaka]

About time the international community focused on SA in a positive light..

Its the start of good things.. going from strength to strength

The international community was going to have a 93% positive image of South Africa if it was not for the countries and people that for centuries have only enslaved, invaded, occupied and destroyed the people of Africa and the world propaganda against South Africa. When people speak about the international community we should exclude all those evil countries. Because they are not part of the international community they are part of the international terror Network.

 

[Slooth]

The international community was going to have a 93% positive image of South Africa if it was not for the countries and people that for centuries have only enslaved, invaded, occupied and destroyed the people of Africa and the world propaganda against South Africa. When people speak about the international community we should exclude all those evil countries. Because they are not part of the international community they are part of the international terror Network.

Good post and I agree, countries like Zim are indeed communities of terror.

 

[lsuacner]

3% is a statistical insignificance.

In the same manner as the following works, the same concept is applied. This is statistics working.
Auditors often allow a 3% margin of error because they can not test everything, it is not cost efficient.

Auditors allow 0.5% to 1% in the turnover.
1-2% in gross profit.
2-5% in net income.

Therefore a 3% movement in any direction does not mean ****all. Auditors would apply the concept of materiality to many other situations. They also look at the nature of the error. Say R1 transferred to the chief financial officer for no reason, that alone leads to a qualified opinion.

So I will repeat this again, a 3% movement, does not mean anything except that things are exactly the same as before.

 

[lsuacner]

if it was not for the countries and people that for centuries have only enslaved, invaded, occupied and destroyed the people of Africa and the world

propaganda against South Africa

Propaganda against South Africa? Did you not say Zimbabwe was a victim of propaganda also? Turns out the west was correct, Zimbabwe is falling apart.

Africans started, invented, commercialised slavery in Africa.
Africa was not invaded by armies, merchants took to staying here for longer periods and started to live here. People emigrated here in the same manner Zimbabweans are doing today.

We occupied the territories, because we started to live here, we gave governance to a chaotic society, brought civilisation to the locals who embraced it till their minds became rotten with power and greed.

Africa was being built from the ground up, till African leaders decided they wanted independence to accumulate wealth for themselves. Mugabe is an example.

Hong Kong was in the same position Africa was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, today it is a 1st world country, due to it being under British control for 100 years. Thanks to independence, Africa will never enjoy being classified as a first world.

People with the same attitude you have, have destroyed Africa and prefer to blame others, because they are immature and believe the world would believe them when they assign blame to others.

 

[PeterCH]

I wish our corrupt officials and criminals will be executed for once. Am vindictive today because a girl in a security complex next to mine was raped and stabbed. Kill criminals who remove themselves from a civil society.

3% improvement is marginal. It is statistically insignificant, it might even be a sampling error.

In a patriarchal society, the opinion of the girl never counts. So it may not be seen as a forced act by some of those who raped this woman.

 

[PeterCH]

Propaganda against South Africa? Did you not say Zimbabwe was a victim of propaganda also? Turns out the west was correct, Zimbabwe is falling apart.

Africans started, invented, commercialised slavery in Africa.
Africa was not invaded by armies, merchants took to staying here for longer periods and started to live here. People emigrated here in the same manner Zimbabweans are doing today.

We occupied the territories, because we started to live here, we gave governance to a chaotic society, brought civilisation to the locals who embraced it till their minds became rotten with power and greed.

Africa was being built from the ground up, till African leaders decided they wanted independence to accumulate wealth for themselves. Mugabe is an example.

Hong Kong was in the same position Africa was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, today it is a 1st world country, due to it being under British control for 100 years. Thanks to independence, Africa will never enjoy being classified as a first world.

People with the same attitude you have, have destroyed Africa and prefer to blame others, because they are immature and believe the world would believe them when they assign blame to others.

I agree on many points with you, but not on HK. HK's only bonus was the capitalist non-turbulent period during which China had to deal with their civil war and Stalinist system as well as prior dictats of Europe/Japan (Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion etc). HK had the added option of being a business/logistics hub between Australia, the West, Japan and Asia so it had
that going for it too. Nowadays the Chinese are doing as well if not better in non-HK parts of China. However to believe that the Brits built HK is incorrect,
the same people who built the Wall of China while the Europeans were marauding villages in animal skins are primarily responsible for this.

It's funny but all of mainland East-Asia has had or is in some form of economic boom, except for NK. Sadly Africa can't seem to (want to) emulate that,
even states which are not democratic are doing well (Vietnam, ROC).

Africa just doesn't want to be successful. Countries like Nigeria, loaded with oil, minerals and land - with so much potential - are just being wasted on internal wars
and corruption. This gets repeated everywhere in sub-Saharan Africa and even now in SA. I have no idea what the causes of this are, but if China can get over
years of Japanese/European colonialism to become one of the leading economies in the world, why can't Africa?

 

[onlyme]

@Toxicbunny, while you may privately disagree with this report. It is not enough to dispute it publicly without evidence. The most you can say is that you have insufficient information to pass comment.

This debate has also been focusing on the government only, but good governance also applies to private companies. Most companies in South Africa are highly aware of the principles of good governance (as defined in the King II Report), and have taken action to ensure these principles are implemented.

On the government debate, here is a crude analysis that I am going to use to try to verify or dispute the results. Obviously the first sign of corruption should be in the auditor's report. So, by looking at the number of clean audits from year to year, we should be able to get a rough benchmark (I am aware of many flaws in this method, I make no apologies, and fellow forumites are welcome to refine this).


2005/06


http://www.da.org.za/da/Site/Eng/campaigns/auditOutcomes_2005-06.asp

3 / 32 = 9.375%


http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2146067,00.html

This means that the percentage of clean audits has increased from 9% - 12%, an improvement, agreeing with Xterminator's view.

So while you might say the level of corruption is shocking, it is showing an improvement.

an improvement...., what is it with people in this country, either we completely ignore the good and only see the bad or we completely ignore the bad and only see the good, made up or not, 12% good governance is horrific, and is in reality no better than 9%. how can anyone honestly look at this kind of situation and see it as good.....

the reality is that we still have 88% bad governance, and at the current rate it would take *30 Years* for a significant improvement to occur.

 

[onlyme]

The international community was going to have a 93% positive image of South Africa if it was not for the countries and people that for centuries have only enslaved, invaded, occupied and destroyed the people of Africa and the world propaganda against South Africa. When people speak about the international community we should exclude all those evil countries. Because they are not part of the international community they are part of the international terror Network.

There are a lot of examples of succesfull african countries where they were left alone over the centuries to develop a modern civilisation..... I just can't think of one right now.