Publications
Partners
AS A plan, President Jacob Zuma’s State of the Nation speech this week was "remarkable". Job creation, economic growth, wage inequality and improving the living conditions of miners were among issues he promised to tackle.
His address was unrepentant in its open-mindedness and unsparing in its resolve.
He said the economy took centre stage in the government’s new programme of action, adding it was the government’s belief that the most effective weapon in the campaign against poverty is the creation of decent work and that creating jobs requires faster economic growth.
He also said that the government would monitor compliance of mining companies with mining charter targets. Among these, he said, are deadlines this year to convert or upgrade hostels into family and single units, as well as home ownership.
However, as a speech his address this week was awful. State of the Nation speeches are meant to be stirring, and this was not in the least.
And speeches are supposed to be uncompromising in quality and detailed in forethought. For instance, he should have stated categorically what the struggling Postbank’s problems are before stating that the government would support the bank.
We know that Postbank has been having problems in recent years but I do not think we know as much as the government, which owns the bank.
Additionally, he did not even specify or give finer details of how the troubled bank would be supported.
He should know better than I do that State of the Nation addresses are supposed provide heads of state the opportunity to grab the attention of listeners to discuss not only strategy, but also a convincing way forward.
The speech was too biased to justify nationalistic pomp, and because of that in my book it all came tumbling down.
The reason I am saying this is that some of the changes he said the government was envisaging were part of the ANC’s programme of action. He should also have borrowed some ideas from his opponents and critics, because surely some of them have amazing ideas.
His followers, of course, will have adored the speech. However, a limited number of people will dismiss it for a number of reasons.
Firstly, Zuma’s take on where the South African economy should be in the next couple of years was too buoyant.
He said the government’s 2019 economic growth target was 5% - without considering what the global impact on the economy would be in the medium term.
He also did not say what made him and his advisers think this would be achieved.
He put too-positive a spin on government and business relations, committing to deepening relations with the private sector to bolster economic and investment growth of the country.
He made these comments despite, it seems, checking whether CEOs of South African companies were willing to remedy the state of the country’s economy.
Zuma’s deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking at a breakfast meeting later in the week, said local firms would be encouraged to invest in South Africa.
Why are they not investing in their own country in the first place? I think Zuma should first look at this.
I really doubt if the president played an active role in the writing of this speech. Remember, we were told that he was asked by his doctor to take a break due to stress.
How then could he work on his speech when he had been urged to relax by his doctor?
- Fin24
*Mzwandile Jacks is an independent journalist. Opinions expressed are his own.
His address was unrepentant in its open-mindedness and unsparing in its resolve.
He said the economy took centre stage in the government’s new programme of action, adding it was the government’s belief that the most effective weapon in the campaign against poverty is the creation of decent work and that creating jobs requires faster economic growth.
He also said that the government would monitor compliance of mining companies with mining charter targets. Among these, he said, are deadlines this year to convert or upgrade hostels into family and single units, as well as home ownership.
However, as a speech his address this week was awful. State of the Nation speeches are meant to be stirring, and this was not in the least.
And speeches are supposed to be uncompromising in quality and detailed in forethought. For instance, he should have stated categorically what the struggling Postbank’s problems are before stating that the government would support the bank.
We know that Postbank has been having problems in recent years but I do not think we know as much as the government, which owns the bank.
Additionally, he did not even specify or give finer details of how the troubled bank would be supported.
He should know better than I do that State of the Nation addresses are supposed provide heads of state the opportunity to grab the attention of listeners to discuss not only strategy, but also a convincing way forward.
The speech was too biased to justify nationalistic pomp, and because of that in my book it all came tumbling down.
The reason I am saying this is that some of the changes he said the government was envisaging were part of the ANC’s programme of action. He should also have borrowed some ideas from his opponents and critics, because surely some of them have amazing ideas.
His followers, of course, will have adored the speech. However, a limited number of people will dismiss it for a number of reasons.
Firstly, Zuma’s take on where the South African economy should be in the next couple of years was too buoyant.
He said the government’s 2019 economic growth target was 5% - without considering what the global impact on the economy would be in the medium term.
He also did not say what made him and his advisers think this would be achieved.
He put too-positive a spin on government and business relations, committing to deepening relations with the private sector to bolster economic and investment growth of the country.
He made these comments despite, it seems, checking whether CEOs of South African companies were willing to remedy the state of the country’s economy.
Zuma’s deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking at a breakfast meeting later in the week, said local firms would be encouraged to invest in South Africa.
Why are they not investing in their own country in the first place? I think Zuma should first look at this.
I really doubt if the president played an active role in the writing of this speech. Remember, we were told that he was asked by his doctor to take a break due to stress.
How then could he work on his speech when he had been urged to relax by his doctor?
- Fin24
*Mzwandile Jacks is an independent journalist. Opinions expressed are his own.
