T Mbeki: Debate on State of the Nation Address

15 February 2007

Madame Speaker,
Madame Deputy Speaker,
Honourable Deputy President,
Honourable Members,
Fellow South Africans,

I would like to thank all the Honourable Members who participated in the
Debate of the State of the Nation Address. Once again I would like to assure
the Honourable Members that the Presidency will indeed examine the proposals
and requests conveyed by the Honourable Members and respond to them.

In this regard I would like to thank the Honourable Bantu Holomisa for his
letter to the President dated 12 December, 2006. When I responded to Questions
to the President on 15 November last year, the Honourable Holomisa made a
suggestion concerning the South African Police Service (SAPS). I then asked the
Honourable Member further to elaborate the idea he had expressed and convey it
to me.

He did this in the letter of 12 December to which I have just referred. Both
the Honourable Minister of Safety and Security and I have considered the
contents of the letter carefully and will respond to the Honourable Member.
Once again I would like to thank the Honourable Member for respecting my
request and apologise for the delay in responding to him.

As I listened to the 51 speakers who participated in the Debate, often, the
poem by W B Yeats, The Rose Tree, flashed across my mind. Here is what it says
in the first stanza:

'O words are lightly spoken,'
Said Pearse to Connolly,
'Maybe a breath of politic words
Has withered our Rose Tree;
Or maybe but a wind that blows
Across the bitter sea.'

These words came to mind because in quite a few instances I did indeed think
that words had been lightly spoken, and truly politic words, but which in their
toxicity could, like the wind that blows across these parts of our country and
across the bitter sea to our south, indeed wither our Rose Tree.

Necessarily, therefore, I could not but hear the words that were not lightly
spoken when the Honourable Pieter Mulder said: "We do not know each other and
do not debate with each other. Two minute speeches from this podium are not
debates." (Ons ken mekaar nie en debateer nie met mekaar nie. 'n twee minute
toesprake van hierdie podium is nie debat nie.)

Similarly, I also heard the words that were not lightly spoken when the
Honourable Tony Leon said, "as a nation we should spend more time listening to
each other, and not be too quick to judge as illegitimate the concerns and
expressions of any group."

I could not but hear the words that were not lightly spoken when the
Honourable Minister of Public Service and Administration said, "We must guard
against a habit that is setting in, this habit of painting with very broad
strokes, generalising to large groups and entire institutions�"

Neither could I miss the words that were not lightly spoken when the
Honourable Minister of Education said that, for us to be national agents for
social change, "We have to throw off the cloak of self-imposed superiority that
seeks to pretend that some of us know it all. We also have to throw off the
cloak of imposed inferiority that causes some of us to define ourselves as
unequal to deep challenges."

But having listened as carefully as I could both to the words that were
lightly spoken and those that were not, I am still uncertain as to whether we
have developed sufficient national cohesion enabling all of us to speak in a
common vocabulary that we share, whatever language we use.

The Honourable Minister of Education recalled what we said in the State of
the Nation Address that, "We must today renew our pledge, to speak together of
freedom, to act in partnership to realise the happiness for all that should
come with liberty, to work together to build a South Africa defined by a common
dream, to say, together, in action � enough of everything that made our country
to contain within it and represent much that is ugly and repulsive in human
society!"

The Honourable Mangosuthu Buthelezi said: "We must respond to the President
with a cross-party approach which creates a new spirit of national unity in
dealing with these challenges. I appeal to both sides of the aisle to consider
the need to join hands to provide our contribution in our respective roles by
placing the interest of the country above that of our own parties or politics
in general."

The Honourable Craig Morkel said, "What we need is to see eye to eye and
establish common ground on the basis of our common patriotism�"

And yet, presumably because, like me, he had heard the words that were
lightly spoken, the toxic politic words, the Honourable Bantu Holomisa said,
"The President's appeal for unity and Madame Speaker's theme for the year of
deepening the debate, indicate that we as South Africans have not yet found
each other on a number of issues."

As I considered these words that were not lightly spoken, I have wondered
whether the Honourable Holomisa did not here speak to the symptomatic
manifestation of another and deeper problem, the problem identified by the
Honourable Pieter Mulder when he said, "We do not know each other�"

If we do not know one another, we cannot develop the common vocabulary to
which I have referred. Without that common vocabulary we will find it very
difficult to find one another on the matters on which we disagree. We will
therefore find it difficult to enter into the national partnership we have
insisted we need in order to engage in a determined drive to eradicate
everything in the common matrimony that still represents that which is ugly and
repulsive in human society.

Inevitably, we would have to ask ourselves the question � how many of us
heard the Honourable Minister of Education when she said that having entered
into "a social compact that involves us in leading a process of social
transformation", "we need to ask (ourselves) what more can we do, what can we
contribute?"

10 years ago, in June 1997, three years into our democracy, I spoke from
this same podium and posed questions about whether we could in fact speak of a
national consensus or of matters we had defined together as constituting the
national interest.

Because of its continuing relevance, I will take the liberty to quote today,
in 2007, what I said in 1997, concerned then as I am concerned now, having
heard words that are lightly spoken, about whether that most distinctive
feature that makes for our superiority relative to the rest of the animal
world, our minds, has changed sufficiently for us to be able to act in unity to
confront what should be shared challenges.

On 10 June 1997, standing at this same spot, I said:

"In 1986�, Professor Frederick van Zyl Slabbert had resigned his leadership
of the Progressive Federal Party as well as his seat in the tri-cameral
parliament, arguing that to stay on in that institution would merely serve to
lend it legitimacy.

Recognising the historic importance of this decisive break with the
apartheid system, by an Afrikaner, the leadership of the African National
Congress (ANC) made bold to salute Prof Slabbert as 'a new Voortrekker.'

These events are now 10 years behind us. Sadly, for many of us, they, and
other landmarks we passed on our road to the new, are but elements of a dim
recollection of a past that is dwarfed by the giant heritage of today's
democratic society, towards whose birth the 'new Voortrekkers' made their own,
and not insignificant contribution.

We say sadly because to forget them, is to put outside our conscious
activity, to omit from our daily agendas, the task of confronting the challenge
which remains with us - namely, to continue interacting as South Africans, so
that we evolve a national consensus about the things which will constitute the
most fundamental features of the new South Africa, and thus define the path
which we, as a people, must travel together as the new Voortrekkers.

It is important that we resist the temptation to abandon this path and
retreat into a laager, as some recent developments seem to suggest�

Presumably the question must arise as to whether there can be such a thing
as a national consensus on anything, except in the most vacuous sense! Is it
possible to have a national agenda - to say in a practical way, that these
matters make up the national interest to which all can adhere, regardless of
partisan interests!

Or are the very concepts of national interest and national consensus nothing
more than the dream of fools, an illusion best left to the idle who have
nothing to do but to build sand castles!

After all, whereas, daily we proclaim ourselves a nation, that we are a
nation, which can share in a national interest, or are we merely a collection
of communities that happen to inhabit one geopolitical space!

We are emerging but only emerging slowly and painfully, out of a deeply
fractured society. This is a society which continues to be characterised by
deep fissures which separate the black people from the white, the hungry from
the prosperous, the urban from the rural, the male from the female, the
disabled from the rest.

Running like a structural fault through it all, and weaving it together into
a frightening bundle of imbalance and inequality, is the question of race and
colour - the fundamental consideration on which was built South African society
for 300 years.

Is it therefore not an idle thing to imagine that out of this amalgam of
inequity, where some have everything and others have nothing, where some
instinctively behave as superiors and others know it as a matter of fact that
they are seen as inferior, where some must experience change otherwise they
perish, and others fear they will perish as a result of change - is it not an
idle thing to imagine that out of all this there can emerge a national
consensus!

But may it not be that the question to pose is whether, for it to survive
and develop, a society so deeply fractured within itself, does not need to make
a conscious, determined and sustained effort to build a national consensus
about those matters which will ensure that indeed and in reality, a nation is
born!

The birth of that nation demands that we fundamentally transform our
society. The new nation cannot come into being on the basis of the perpetuation
of the extraordinary imbalances we have inherited from the past. It cannot be
founded on the entrenchment of the apartheid legacy.

I am certain that all the Honourable Members of this House will agree with
these sentiments, regardless of party affiliation.

After all, we all subscribe to the noble sentiments contained in our
Constitution which commits the country 'to promote and protect human dignity,
to achieve equality and advance human rights and freedoms... to promote
non-racialism and non-sexism...'

I believe that we all supported these constitutional provisions and continue
to do so now because we understood that the absence of a settlement containing
these objectives would not end the conflict in our country, but would condemn
it to a destructive civil war.

By this means, we recognised the fact that there can be such a thing as a
national consensus around a national agenda. We accept that the advancement of
the very interests of each, regardless of their race, colour, gender or social
class, demanded that we bend every effort to ensure that the kind of society
described in the constitution is born.

Together, we adopted a position which recognised that no legitimate
sectional interest can be served or aspiration realised, unless it was pursued
within a society characterised by equality, non-racialism, non-sexism and human
dignity.

We are convinced that precisely because we were and are engaged in a complex
and all-embracing process of fundamental social transformation, proceeding as
we are from our past of division, conflict and mutual antagonism, it was and is
important that we develop a national consensus about those matters, such as
those reflected in our Constitution, which will define the fundamental and
permanent nature of our society."

On all occasions when we meet as we have since last Friday, we speak of
change � some about our success in changing our society for the better, and
others about how we have failed to effect any significant change, each speaking
from his or her opposing trench, such that in the end we appear to be speaking
about different countries, one of which might be called South Africa, and the
other, to give it a name, whatever its meaning, might be called Azania.

When we talk about change we speak, as we must do, about the number of jobs
created, about the number of houses built, about the provision of water,
sanitation and electricity and about rates of economic growth.

But we rarely speak about the change or the absence of change in our minds.
Each time anybody dares to venture into this area, in many instances to decode
a vocabulary that has learnt to disguise old insults by presenting itself as
the vehicle for the dispassionate presentation of objective reality, a deluge
of condemnation descends on the daring soul, communicating the message to all
who would dare that these should forever be mindful of the advice � only fools
rush in where angels fear to tread!

If I may, I would like to suggest that the fact that it was necessary,
today, to repeat verbatim what was said 10 years ago, makes an immensely sad
statement about us all. It must surely be a matter of profound distress that
almost at the end of the 13th year of our emancipation, questions must still be
asked as to whether we are, as a nation, capable of uniting to pursue a
commonly defined national agenda, as to whether it is to expect too much to
believe that as individual members of our society, we are capable of honestly
asking ourselves the questions - what more can we do, what can we
contribute?

After the Honourable Minister of Arts and Culture had spoken, saying that
"Thomas Paine once wrote that we esteem too lightly that which we gain rather
cheaply," I wondered whether toxic words had not been lightly spoken in this
House because there are some among us whose hearts had absolutely no
possibility to be moved when the Honourable Minister spoke of "The tears, the
blood and the very lives of the martyrs�," and the Honourable Diale commanded
us to remember what Oliver Tambo had said 40 years ago, when he paid tribute to
the South African and Zimbabwe heroes who fell in Hwange to secure our liberty,
that "those illustrious combatants�fell on the sacred fields of Zimbabwe with
the warrior cry on their lips � victory or death!"

If I may say this, it alarmed me greatly that one of us, supposedly a
people's tribune, a tribune of the South African people among whom I am
privileged to belong, the Honourable the Rev K R J Meshoe, could say from this
same podium, "we�must warn the President that if violent crime is not
drastically reduced or even eradicated in this country, then the privilege of
hosting (the) prestigious (2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup) might slip through our
fingers, despite the many assurances we have received from Mr Sepp Blatter, who
is a friend, admirer and supporter of South Africa."

President Sepp Blatter is indeed a friend, admirer and supporter of South
Africa, and a principled fighter for the restoration of the dignity of the
African people universally. Regarding the incidence of violent crime in our
country and its relevance to the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup, President Sepp
Blatter would say that he knows that the people of South Africa would host the
world of football in conditions of safety.

He would say that having considered the report of its Technical Committee
which assessed the various bids to host the 2010 Tournament, and which drew
attention to the challenge of safety and security in our country, the Executive
Committee of FIFA decided, deliberately and consciously, that our country
should host the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup.

He would say that he has told others in the world, who have been greatly
encouraged by remarks emanating from our country, such as those made two days
ago by the Honourable the Rev K R J Meshoe, a tribune of my people, that the
decision has been made � the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup will not slip through
the fingers of the people of South Africa. It will take place in South Africa.
It will be a resounding success.

The Honourable the Rev K R J Meshoe was very correct when he described
President Sepp Blatter as a friend, admirer and supporter of South Africa. In
this context, I must repeat that we have been reluctant to ask ourselves the
critically important question about what has happened to the South African mind
during these 13 years of freedom. This is perhaps because we know that an
honest answer to this question might shatter the beautiful image of a rainbow
nation, which, I have no doubt we must continue to propagate.

But having avoided what we should have done, and should still do, it will be
difficult to answer the question � if President Sepp Blatter is a friend,
admirer and supporter of South Africa, as the Honourable the Rev K R J Meshoe
said, what then is the tribune of the people of South Africa who sits in this
House of representatives, the Honourable the Rev K R J Meshoe!

When President Sepp Blatter stood at the FIFA podium in Zurich, Switzerland
and slowly pulled out the card that read "South Africa," the people of our
country, of all races, our continent, the African Diaspora, the friends of
Africa throughout the world, as far as New Zealand, took to the streets in a
spontaneous display of joy.

For measly partisan reasons, the Honourable the Rev K R J Meshoe now
believes, quite wrongly, that he can convince FIFA and the football world that
these millions in our country, in Africa, the African Diaspora and the rest of
the world did not mean it when they confirmed through their celebrations, that
they are determined to ensure that the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup will be the
best ever!

I believe that whatever our problems, our nation indeed shares the common
resolve to make the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup the best ever. I believe that
this common resolve communicates the unequivocal message that regardless of our
fractured past, and despite the reality of the stubborn persistence of the
legacy of that past, we are indeed capable of arriving at a national consensus
about how to respond to our most important challenges, about what we need to do
to identify and act in unity to advance that which we will have agreed
constitutes the national interest.

Perhaps we should together take a deliberate decision to institute a
national process that will help us to identify the issues that we would
determine as the matters on which we should act in partnership, inspired by a
common patriotism that would enable us to build the cross-party partnership
that would be united by a voluntary national consensus.

Consistent with this reflection, the Honourable Bantu Holomisa said,
"Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to form a steering committee composed of
all South African stakeholders to begin to identify areas where we need to
deepen the debate as a nation. Such a process should culminate in a National
Convention where resolutions would be taken�This is the type of action that I
believe is required; we cannot simply talk of unity and deeper debates if it
doesn't result in something concrete."

Parliament will, in its wisdom, decide what to do with this suggestion. If
Parliament, which represents the will of the people, constituted such a
steering committee from within its ranks, and it asked me to suggest three
domestic topics that might be addressed, I would suggest that these should
be:

* social transformation, including the important issues of national and
social cohesion, and a national value system
* the eradication of poverty
* the reduction and eradication of crime, especially crimes against the
person.

I would add this note of caution, that the participants in the process that
the Honourable Bantu Holomisa proposed should not set themselves short
timeframes. I would say that they would have to learn to be patient. I would
say that they should respect what the Honourable Pieter Mulder said, that we do
not know one another.

I would advise that there would be no difficulty whatsoever in getting
everybody to agree that there must be social transformation; poverty must be
eradicated; and crime must be defeated, totally and permanently.

Similarly I would advise that the steering committee should expect that the
seeming unanimity about these outcomes would, certainly in the first instance
and whatever else would happen later, dissolve into a fractious wrangle even
about the definition of the issues about which there was apparent unanimity, to
say nothing about what would have to be done practically to respond to these
challenges.

But I would also advise the steering committee to pay the closest attention
to what the people say, regardless of what many of us in this House think about
our country and government, and indeed about ourselves as the people's oracle.
I say this to recall what various Honourable Members, who actually work among
the people, said about what the people say about where they have been, where
they are, and where they know they will be.

I refer here to testimonies given by such Honourable Members as the
Honourable Elizabeth Thabethe, J B Sibanyoni, Sindi Chikunga, Maggie Sotyu,
Richard Baloyi, Spetho Asiya, and Nomhle Dambuza. These and other testimonies
brought the voice of the ordinary people into this House, the masses who know
what pain and suffering means, who know what subjection to merciless and brutal
physical, psychological, economic and cultural violence means, who know what
sacrifice means, who know what a word of honour and a solemn commitment means,
who understand what the Honourable Pandelani Nefolovhodwe meant when he spoke
of "factors that the poor are subjected to, (which) contribute to the
dehumanisation of people, and lead to feelings of inferiority and
hopelessness," who agree with the Honourable Themba Godi that "the freedom we
have attained should address itself to these two: poverty and inequality that
afflict the majority," who will have known that the Honourable Obed Bapela told
them of the future of which they are certain, when he used the idiom � "Mma o
tlile; tlala o nyele."

These words convey the feeling of happiness that all of us must surely feel
at the success of the Proteas against Pakistan. It bodes very well indeed that
we won both the Test and the One-Day International (ODI) series, and triumphed
in such a spectacular fashion in the 20/20 match. We wish the Proteas success
in the Cricket World Cup in the Caribbean, confident that they have now fully
mastered the mathematics of the Duckworth-Lewis method.

We also welcome to our country the new coach of Bafana Bafana, Carlos
Parreira, and wish him success in his important work. We are glad that he is
now, legally, a member of our national cadre of professional workers.

Our hearts are full of joyful song as we join the Soweto Gospel Choir in
celebration of the Grammy Award they have just won, which confirms a
distinguishing feature of our nation, that we are indeed a people that carries
in its blood a joyful culture of hope.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the formation of
the National Council of Provinces. This will give us an opportunity to assess
how well the institutions of our democracy are functioning. In the meantime, I
would like to take this opportunity to salute the National Assembly and all of
you, Honourable Members, for your devotion to the task to serve the masses of
the people who elected all of us.

I am aware of the frustrations about the Executive that you have sometimes
felt. I would like to assure you that our Deputy President, as Leader of
Government Business, is working hard to address your concerns in this
regard.

Equally, I am aware of the legitimate sentiment shared within the judiciary
that you must pay closer attention to the quality of the drafts of the
legislation which only you can approve. I accept that if there are any
weaknesses in this regard, the Executive must also bear its own share of
responsibility.

I know that on occasion we have made honest mistakes, both as an institution
and as Members. I know too that some have sought to exploit these failings to
communicate a message about the Honourable Members that is patently unjust.

As I have interacted with the people, I have not heard any conclusion made
that the people view this House as being little more than a den of thieves.
Nevertheless, I am certain that all of you are as aware as anybody else in our
country that you must do everything possible and necessary to maintain the
integrity and dignity of this premier expression of the will of the people.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Honourable Tony Leon for
taking the trouble to inform me about his impending retirement as leader of the
Democratic Alliance (DA) before he made this public. I am certain that all of
us will miss his lively engagement as a party leader in the public debate that
must and will continue, whatever our views about the rights and wrongs of the
arguments he advanced, and the manner in which he advanced those arguments.

From where I sit, I would never have the courage to argue that he served
merely as a Chihuahua, because, indeed, he has the bark of a bull terrier. I
wish the DA success as it engages the process to elect a successor, whom I am
certain, will be no less a defender of the mandate of the DA and its supporters
than is the Honourable Tony Leon. I am certain that whatever else he does
having voluntarily surrendered the leadership of the DA, he will succeed.
Should he need a helping hand, which I doubt, we are nevertheless ready to lend
that hand. Tony, best wishes!

As I approach the conclusion of my response to the lively and important
Debate on the State of the Nation Address, let me return to the issue of crime
which a significant number of Honourable Members discussed.

The Honourable Molefi Sefularo said the Hon the Rev K R J Meshoe "chose to
take upon himself the task of amplifying the voices that insist that the
President, the government and the ANC do not care about the tragedy and the
pain of those who fall victim to crime. Like the Pharisees, he wants the
President to wear sack cloth and flagellate himself."

I too have heard reports of the voices to which the Honourable Sefularo
referred. This I must say � for 64 years I have never had either the ability or
the courage or the need to resort to grand theatrical gestures. I know this as
a matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of the masses of our people
would be gravely offended if tomorrow, to respond to the demands of the
Pharisees, I should take to the stage to weep tears meant for the camera, to
convince them of what they know, that the African National Congress of which I
am a proud member, now, for the first time in 95 years, has at last understood
their pain, and is at one with them in lamenting their individual
tragedies.

There will be no empty theatrical gestures, no prancing on the stage and no
flagellation, but we will continue to act against crime, as decisively as we
have sought to do throughout the years of our liberation. From us, from the
government, will issue no words that are lightly spoken.

For the Fiscal Year 1994/1995, the Police budget was R7,7 billion. Five
years later, for the Fiscal Year 1999/2000, the Police budget had doubled to
R14,6 billion. Five years after this, for the Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the Police
Budget had increased to R25,4 billion. Two years later, for the Fiscal Year
2006/2007, the Police Budget had increased yet again to R32,5 billion, an
increase of R7 billion in a mere two years, equal, in nominal terms, to the
entire budget for 1994/1995. The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)
visualises that the Police Budget for 2009/2010 will be R43,6 billion, more
than 600% of what it was when we achieved our freedom.

The number of members of the Police Service increased from the low figure of
116 774 in the year 2001/2002, which reflected the adjustment that had taken
place during the difficult phase of creating the new SAPS, to 139 000 two years
later in the year 2003/2004. Two years later, in 2005/2006, the number
increased to 155 500. In terms of our MTEF planning, three years after this, as
I indicated broadly last Friday, for the year 2008/2009, the number will be 183
000. What this means is that in 7 years, we will have increased the size of the
Police Service by at least 67 000 officers, significantly more than 50% of its
size in 2001/2002.

These figures tell a simple story about the resources that our government
has, through the years of freedom, allocated to the struggle for the safety and
security of all our people, precisely because the achievement of this objective
has always been one of the principal and therefore priority strategic
objectives of the democratic revolution. About this, we will not apologise to
anybody.

During the course of the Debate, the Honourable Minister of Safety and
Security reminded the House and the nation of an analysis published in the
2005/2006 SAPS annual report, which reflected on the crimes of murder,
attempted murder, rape, serious and violent assault, and common assault,
precisely the crimes that produce the greatest levels of insecurity among our
people.

The Honourable Minister reported that: "What the exercise revealed was that
81,5% of the murder victims were killed by persons they knew. The killers in
61,9% of the cases were relatives, friends or acquaintances of the victims. In
75,9% of rape cases the victims knew the rapists, while in 56,9% the rapists
were relatives, friends or acquaintances of the victims. Cases of assault
showed higher percentages of perpetrators known to the victims, including
relatives, friends or acquaintances."

These figures tell the very obvious story that by far the bulk of violence
against the person in our society occurs in specific social circumstances,
within communities that are poor, marginalised and afflicted by an almost
irreversible sense of hopelessness. With regard to murder and rape, 20% of
these would then occur throughout society as a whole, outside the relatively
narrow circle of relatives, friends or acquaintances, or people known to the
victims.

With regard to all this, the Honourable Dr Mangosuthu Buthulezi made the
entirely correct observation that, "Today the largest number of victims of
crime are among the poor, including the older people attacked in townships by
youngsters who pillage their wages at the end of a hard week's work, or the
small emerging businesses trading in rural and growing urban areas alike."

Further, the Honourable Dr Buthelezi made a call to which all of us must
surely respond, that, "At a deeper level, we need to go back to basics and
inculcate a respect agenda amongst our youth. A transforming society, such as
ours, need not be an uncivilised society. The seeds of crime and lawlessness
are often sown at a young age. We must bring back a sense of respect in our
schools, communities, townships and cities."

To this I would add that we must welcome and respond with great vigour to
what the Honourable Minister of Social Development said, that "Strengthening
families is fundamental in the quest for social cohesion and building the
social fabric of our society. We intend to release for public discussion later
this year, a National Family Policy. We hope it will stimulate dialogue on our
common vision of the family as a core institution in our country, and the rock
upon which our communities are founded."

In the State of the Nation Address, I said we would "improve our analysis of
crime trends to improve our performance with regard both to crime prevention
and crime combating. In this regard, we must respond to the cold reality that,
as in other countries, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes against the
person occur in the most socio-economically deprived areas of our country and
require strong and sustained community interventions focused on crime
prevention."

I stand by these conclusions and reaffirm that the government will do
everything possible to act on what we have promised. I am indeed very pleased
that when it celebrated its 95th anniversary, the ANC committed itself once
more to mobilise the masses of our people to join the partnership against
crime, in the same way that they acted in unity to defeat the apartheid crime
against humanity.

Honourable Members,

In the end what we are about is a revolutionary act of the creation of a new
society. None of us has any prior experience of this process. Those of us who
have no choice or have chosen to be agents of change will indeed at all times
ask ourselves - what more can we do, what can we contribute?

We know that those who contributed nothing or very little to the struggle to
end the very long years of oppression, those who were too scared to face the
consequences of being new Voortrekkers, or have become, as the Honourable
Minister of Defence said, "eloquent spectators speaking from the exaggerated
comfort of European cities," will stride down the sidewalk as we march along
the long and difficult highway to the better life to which we are committed,
forever mocking, forever throwing our inevitable temporary failures at our
faces, forever triumphant when we falter, forever finding fault even with the
way we walk, always predicting that nothing but despair will be our reward
whenever we come to the end of our long journey to that new South Africa that
will be free of everything that is ugly and repulsive in human society.

These are the people, compatriots and residents of the common geopolitical
space and their kindred spirits elsewhere in the world, who will, as some did
in this House this week, utter words that are lightly spoken.

The poem, The Rose Tree, continued:

'It needs to be but watered,'
James Connolly replied,
'To make the green come out again
And spread on every side,
And shake the blossom from the bud
To be the garden's pride.'

'But where can we draw water,'
Said Pearse to Connolly,
'When all the wells are parched away?
O plain as plain can be
There's nothing but our own red blood
Can make a right Rose Tree.'

Fortunately, there will be no need for us to give of our own red blood to
make a right Rose Tree. As long as we embed in our deepest consciousness what
the Honourable MaNjobe said, our water wells will not be parched away.

She said that "As South Africans we must reclaim ubuntu, put emphasis on
mutual understanding, appreciate differences, and tolerate diversity in the
multi-cultural environment we live in. The ubuntu values we promote must
sufficiently meet the challenges of reconciliation, reconstruction and
development."

As the Honourable Lechesa Tsenoli said, so noble is the project to create a
new South Africa that it cannot but be the product of a lifetime of selfless
endeavour. He said that this reality compels and entitles us together to say �
siz' olibamba lingatshoni!

Thank you.

Issued by: The Presidency
15 February 2007