I actually cannot believe the most pathetic defence I just heard from our deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe, as to why government ministers were right to purchase a fleet of expensive cars between them even in the face of a recession. In an excellent interview conducted by Nikiwe Bikitsha on e-tv (she really has become a great anchor...), Motlanthe has just put the following argument (I kid you not):
The justification for the cars that were bought is that doing so is government's contribution to helping to halt the recession. The government was motivated, he says, by the fact that it wanted to make absolutely sure that manufacturers don't move their production plants from Uitenhage and East London to neighbouring countries. That can only happen if dealers order cars from car manufacturers. This in turn requires government to buy the cars .... so, ultimately, government is buying the cars in order to make sure that jobs are not shed in the automotive industry.
Holy cow! What warped - and no doubt insincere - reasoning.
1. A handful of luxury vehicles will not make or break the sector.
2. It is laughable to imagine that these manufacturers, like BMW, would think of hastily relocating their plants to Zim or Botswana or Namibia. This would be foolish because the cost of relocation relative to the risk of facing more volative economic conditions there, conditions that entail even more depressive demand for vehicles in these regions, make the net present value of any such investment almost certainly negative.
3. Government's failure to weigh the non-financial benefit (not to downplay the fiscal saving which is a decisive consideration at any rate) of showing citizens how to live frugally in times of a recession speaks to unimaginative and unempathetic leadership.
[Presumably that is also the reason why minister Nathi Mthwethwa decided to live in luxurious hotels - no doubt stimulating economic growth by injecting much needed cash into the tourism sector, ne?]
I find this defence by the deputy president not just unconvincing but callous. It is particularly callous when one thinks of the wording of the question on the part of the anchor, to the effect of, "Do you not think it is in bad taste to be buying such cars when the government is asking the poor to be frugal and accept austerity measures the government is introducing?"
At no stage did Motlanthe even bother to engage the salient point about the *perception* of government ministers' spending on non-essential goods even when such spending is permitted by the infamous 'ministerial handbook'. It is hard to believe that he is sincere in thinking that a million rand car is bought in the selfless name of saving the job of some poor oke living in the townships of Uitenhage and East London.
In fact, he added insult to the poor's injury by adding that they - the poor that is - would at any rate regard even a car of R200 000 as being in bad taste. [ ERGO: UHM....buy one FIVE times R200 000?!]
A good coup for Nikiwe and e-tv. A deep embarrassment for Motlanthe and a shocking reflection of political immorality even in those leaders we sometimes think are the exception to the rotten rule.
Shame on you, mr deputy president!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fair enough - the argument was shameful rationalisation. But do you really think that the cars themselves are such a big deal? If the salaries aren't crazy (which I don't think that they are) and they can afford the cars, so the hell what?
ReplyDeleteThis dovetails nicely with your previous post about Ubuntu. Where is yours Comrade Motlanthe?
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone can comment on whether these cars were purchased with some form of subsidy or allowance from public funds?
ReplyDeleteIf they were bought in the same way as we all have to, by paying a portion of our salaries without any form of subsidy, then they have the right to buy them.
However, even if they have the right to buy them by my above statement it is still important to note how insensitive it is to be buying *such* luxury vehicles when over a third of the country's population doesn't have the funds to pay for their next meal.