28
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
Response to Sipho
Letter date: 2004-11-29 10:38:42
Actually, you are wrong. The courts represent the people in implementing the law of our democratic country. Their job is to protect the law of the land, and punish those that transgress. The fact that we have a progressive constitution means that a ruling of the court can only be overturned by another higher court of appeal.
27
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Paseka
Letter date: 2004-11-26 10:59:55
This is actually getting quite tiresome. How many times must I explain my position to you.
Again, and this time read slowly, and take it in. I have never judged Zuma guilty. I do hope that this is not the case, because, as a country, we don't need the scandal. I have pronounced him guilty of lack of financial acumen and political and moral judgment. Fact remains that Shaik has actually played him for a fool. These are traits (financial acumen and political and moral judgement) that we expect of a leader of our country.
Since he lacks them, one needs to question whether he is fit to be a president. That is my point, now, if you feel that his actions were warranted, please feel free to let me know why.
26
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption
Letter date:
2004-11-26 10:52:41
Had an argument with a friend about this.
People who previously enjoyed status in a non-democratic South Africa are suddenly so concerned about morality and democracy, it makes one sick.
If and when Jacob Zuma has been found guilty of a crime, then I think he would have to resign from a position of responsibility in line with our constitution.
I still do contend that Zuma is the one person who can sort this out, by resigning, not because "new democracts" want him to, but to protect the position of VP.
Unfortunately, smear camapigns exists in politics and hypocrisy is not new, but perceptions are often more powerful than reality
25
Sipho Chiliza wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption
Letter date: 2004-11-25 10:53:22
South Africa is a democratic state, that means even the judge can be over-ruled by the democratic processses, if the people of South Africa feel that they want JZ to be a President. Not even the president of the Constitutional court or any powers that can be, can stop that.
24
Paseka wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-25 10:43:16
You have not answered my question relating to your statement about a deal Jacob Zuma had a major influence and Schabir Shaik got it which deal was that was instrumental in having it awarded to Shaik?
Your argument boils to one point, you have judged JZ guilty even though he is not on trial. Schabir Shaik was right when he said his case is not about corruption but about the credibilty of Jacob Zuma.
I made a statement saying the people of South Africa will decide what to do with Jacob Zuma, not Gary Smith and his ilk. If Zuma is corrupt and not good to lead South Africa, the people will decide that, hence the notion the people shall govern as enshrine in the Freedom Charter.
23
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Paseka
Letter date: 2004-11-24 11:07:28
Throughout the JZ (Jacob Zuma) political life, SS (Schabir Shaik) and his company Nkobi Holdings have won deals where JZ was in a position to either evaluate or influence the outcome.
Shaik has acknowledged that JZ met with French bidders on three occasions and JZ was involved in the "peripheries" of some of the projects relating to the arms deal.
This does not prove any corruption, but it does beg questions as to the nature of the relationship, and JZ's judgment in associating with companies bidding for state business with which he could be involved.
On a final note, when we all play the race card, what we ultimately do is lose in the casino of life.
22
Paseka wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-23 10:36:53
Which particular deal are you referring to that Jacob Zuma had an influence on and Schabir Schaik had an interest in? Just explain it so that you can receive a just response.
As for Ramaphosa and Motsepe, they are died in the wool liberation fighters. I will repeat Thabo Mbeki's words about apartheid, racism and the past, if need be: I will not be afraid to speak about and against racism no matter how much it irritates the white folk, as we cannot ignore our past and pretend as if it never happened I am immune of being accused of playing the racist card as long I believe I am right.
21
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Paseka
Letter date: 2004-11-18 10:59:05
What exactly are you saying? You harp back to the past, but make no attempt to address the issues that I raised.
Question back to you - do you think that it is OK for a politician who has major influence over a particular deal to receive interest free loans from a company that bids for that particular opportunity?
I am sure that you will respond no - well that is precisely what Zuma did, hence the lack of moral and financial judgment.
As for leaders, I am sure that people like Ramaphosa, Nkaba, Motsepe and the like, all incredible minds who I am sure would be prepared to guide company SA, would resent being called apartheid stooges.
20
Paseka wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-17 09:13:20
I am glad you admitted that the Public Protector's findings are irrelevant to your argument. All of a sudden you talk about 'lack of business and financial acumen, moral and ethical judgment' as lacking in regard to Zuma's case. Yet you say you have not judged JZ as corrupt, then how did you are arrived at such conclusions. The prime witness has already eaten the some of the evidence against Shaik yet you are very silent.
During the apartheid era we had people talking like you and using the same excuses about the liberation organisation and their leaders. You have just picked the mettle of racist politics from them and you are doing very well.
You must remember the white voted government and its supporters said Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, a communist (is he really that way? Desmond Tutu was condemned as an anti-Christ who supported a terrorist organisation like the ANC (compare that to NP, CP, AWB, Witwolve). The ANC was presented as the caricature that was going to destroy SA and give it to the communist and bad elements (did all of this happen).
Apartheid stooges and puppets like homeland leaders were paraded around the world, as our genuine leaders. Are you not talking about the same people when you say there are politicians and business people who can fulfil the reign of president.
19
GW wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-11 09:59:10
Well done Gary,
You are 100% right about LA. Your response was excellent.
18
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Paseka
Letter date: 2004-11-10 10:37:35
Paseka, I have never at any stage said that Zuma is guilty of corruption, despite the fact that overwhelming evidence has been presented to that effect.
My argument has been that for someone who is the 2IC of company SA, he has shown a clear lack of business and financial acumen, moral and ethical judgment and regard for what is the right thing to do - all critical traits required of a president.
We only need to look at the US to see what happens when these are lacking.
Based on this, I believe that we have far better politicians and businessmen in this country to fulfil the job of president.
Fact is, the defence still needs to act, and until they have had a chance refute the evidence, no judgments can be made.
Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana’s findings are irrelevant to my argument. They do not question the right or wrong of his actions.
"Zuma rightly so, indicated that his reputation is at stake unless he is allowed to clear himself" - and so he should be, however, he has had ample opportunity to state his case in both parliament, as well as the courts as a defamation case, but for some reason has chosen to remain silent.
Again, my wish is that he is not guilty, and that the money was paid as some sort of loan agreement. However, even the greatest Zuma supporter has to question how he allowed this situation to spiral to the extent that it now compromises himself.
17
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Paseka
Letter date: 2004-11-10 10:17:31
I do agree regarding your comments about the personal nature of the attacks. For my part, I do apologise to the members who come here expecting debate. I am not really sure where we went wrong, but until such time the forum ceases to be a personal attack forum, I will not respond to Gary Smith, and I hope he will do the same.
You wrote: "I am a Zuma supporter, but I still say if he is guilty, he must have his day in court and be tried. On record JZ has been fighting the Scorpions to give him information about his corruptness but was denied."
Well, Zuma is able to ask for an interdict against the Scorpions. He can sue the Scorpions or even agree to testify in the Shaik case hence allowing himself to be cross-examined.
It is one thing to be a fan, but another to admit that somethings do not add up.
However, have you noticed how quiet the media is when the star witness is made to eat his words?
16
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to LA
Letter date: 2004-11-09 11:18:46
Len, this is my final answer to you regarding your rather tired and nauseous habit of calling all white people racist. I will not try to justify myself to you, because there is none so blind as those that will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear.
Your tireless tirade has resulted in your postings now being read more for humorous content, than factual significance. Just like with Minister Moyo in Zimbabwe, who called Cosatu British imperialists, your game is up - your postings have become nothing more than rabid rantings of a disenchanted individual, who cannot contribute with his intellect, and so resorts to name calling and finger pointing.
Next time you choose to challenge a posting on the basis of its author’s race, remember the words of Robert Hutchins: "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and under-nourishment."
George Burns once wrote: "I look to the future because that's where I'm going to spend the rest of my life."
Fortunately, there are more like-minded individuals in this country who choose to do just that, rather than resorting to ugly name calling which does nothing but break down trust, and hope.
15
Paseka wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to LA
Letter date: 2004-11-08 22:55:01
The Gary Smith, LA, GW wrangling is now starting to be boring as it is more personal than a stimulating debate. If Jacob Zuma is reading this column I am sure he is amused as we completely lose track to the main topic. Grow up and own up if you want to be taken seriously.
I am a Zuma supporter, but I still say if he is guilty, he must have his day in court and be tried. On record JZ has been fighting the Scorpions to give him information about his corruptness but was denied. What Gary and others deliberately omit is that the Public Protector, Lawrence Mushwana’s findings in relation to which the Scorpion handled the Zuma prima facie case as unfair an inexcusable, as it already judge JZ as guilty of corruption yet unprosecutable in court.
Zuma rightly so, indicated that his reputation is at stake unless he is allowed to clear himself, his constitutional rights were infringed according to the Public Protector. This damaging scenario to JZ, is quite evident when you read statements by Gary Smith and others. All of a sudden we are told who is damaged goods and not fit to rule us, quite interesting
14
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-08 14:59:18
"For the record Len, I am not a racist and I am proudly South African."
Is that so, really?
Find it hard to believe from your postings, which you might wish to review without your obviously anti-black tinted glasses.
13
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to LA
Letter date: 2004-11-05 14:19:41
The sad part of all debate in which you partake is the fact that you almost always refer back to race or racism to justify an argument.
Your last response to me has done just that. Perhaps it's time for you to review all recent correspondence signed LA, but this time without the tinted glasses you wear, and then come back and honestly tell this board that you are not ant-white.
For the record Len, I am not a racist and I am proudly South African. The fact that you try and paint me as otherwise becomes less and less significant with each further posting you submit.
12
GW wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
LA
Letter date: 2004-11-04 12:27:09
Len, your last response to me is exactly what I tried to point out to you before.
You said: "So, in order not to create an argument, I have to agree with views that I do not believe reflect reality?"
Sharing a viewpoint or disagreeing, and getting argumentative and personal are two very different concepts.
You said: "I tend to rub idiots the wrong way. If I have rubbed you the wrong way, make your own conclusions."
How should I respond to this?
Did you know that duelling is still legal in Spain as long as you are a blood donor? Mmmmm, maybe the government should legalise it here...
11
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-03 11:02:27
"Based on your anti-white rhetoric"
I would consider this your opinion, which does not deserve any serious comment "it's clear what you insinuated."
Insinuate or state? Again, this is your opinion and is not backed by reality. Again, this deserves to be ignored as rantings of someone who does not wish his views to be challenged just because he believes he has an ingrained right to criticise and anyone that dares offer an alternative opinion is summarily dismissed as anti-white.
Oh well, enjoy yourself. Perhaps, if you tell yourself as many times as you can manage, that you are pro-African and non-racist, perhaps you will eventually achieve such a state. Until then, wish you well.
10
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
GW
Letter date: 2004-11-03 10:55:14
"Len, why do you have to turn everything into an argument?"
So, in order not to create an argument, I have to agree with views that I do not believe reflect reality? For example, you claim that I turn everything into an argument. I doubt if you can claim to know me that well to make such a statement. It can then be your opinion based on a limited understanding of who I am and why I bother to post on IOL. Unfortunately, such assumptions are based on ignorance and have no basis on reality. I hope you do not find that argumentative, rather informative.
"I made a comment that was not meant to create an argument, but rather point out your antagonistic attitude."
And why was it necessary for you to offer your opinion as fact, and expect me not to comment on something that is obviously based on your opinion? Surely, you are intelligent enough to understand that if you offer an opinion about me, I will respond in kind, depending on whether such an opinion is merely nonsense from an idiot or a well-constructed opinion from a smart person. Unfortunately, I associate your arguments with the former (not you, per se, just your arguments and opinions)
"Get a life, Sir."
Well, I would suggest you do the same, but I doubt if you know what that is, though.
"Do you go out of your way just to rub people op the wrong way?"
I tend to rub idiots the wrong way. If I have rubbed you the wrong way, make your own conclusions.
"Who are you to decide whether a point made is worth a discussion or not?"
I think you are not as quick as you believe you are. Please read what I said again.
"All of us who bother to read these letters do so because we care about the quality of our lives and of those around us"
Delighted to see that you have been nominated the spokesperson of those that read this section. Cannot remember when the elections were held. I suggest you offer your own opinions and let others offer theirs.
"We send our letters in because we want to share our thoughts, and not get involved in arguments."
Of course. No one else has an opinion that they can express. You are there for them. You are doing well, but proving beyond doubt that apartheid education was not completely what we have been made to believe.
09
GW wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
LA
Letter date: 2004-11-02 17:14:34
Len, why do you have to turn everything into an argument?
You state: "How was my response to Gary surprising? Your argument did not indicate that my response to Gary was surprising."
I made a comment that was not meant to create an argument, but rather point out your antagonistic attitude.
Get a life, Sir.
Do you go out of your way just to rub people op the wrong way?
Your ability to brush aside a person's statement as irrelevant such as this comment: "As for your opinion about President Mbeki, I wish to ignore it because it does not deserve any serious debate" is my point exactly.”
Who are you to decide whether a point made is worth a discussion or not?
All of us who bother to read these letters do so because we care about the quality of our lives and of those around us. We send our letters in because we want to share our thoughts, and not get involved in arguments.
08
Paseka wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to LA
Letter date: 2004-11-02 17:04:53
In any way Len, I am not in anyway substituting Jacob Zuma’s struggle credentials with the Shaik corruption case. It is common knowledge that Zuma repeatedly asked for his day in court about this but was denied. All the evidence linked to the prima facie case was also denied to him for perusal.
What irks me is when individuals who always jump the gun and call for Zuma to resign or recuse himself from his duties even before the proceedings ended.
Zuma's reputation is now a political footbal and the last ANC congress in Stellenbosch proved that he is popular as ever. Makes one think.
If he is guilty, let him face the courts like popular figures within the political framework like Mzwakhe Mbuli,Alan Boesak,Winnie Mandela,Tony Yengeni etc.
07
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-11-02 16:52:49
"In his racial innuendo, Len reveals his own racism"
I hate to point this out to you and your hero, but you are the ones that jumped to the racial conclusion. You seem to imply that if Tony Leon is ever used in the South African context, that whoever raises his name must be doing so to show racial contrast. For you to make that assumption, race has to be in the tip of your tongue, or perhaps you associate Tony Leon with racism. If that is the case, then that is your problem and not mine.
"He clearly is basing his reply to you on assumptions derived from your name only, i.e. that you are white, that you therefore are silent and unconcerned when black Africans suffer, and that you fail to acknowledge or appreciate the good work and courage that Africans like Zuma have demonstrated in their lives."
And the problem with your assumption is that anyone who differs with your willy nilly criticism of anything that does not come from views you support, you assume can only be based on race.
That is a terrific assumption, if you ask me and perhaps you might be better served to read what is written, rather than create your own scenarios.
"More disturbing for me is Len's willingness to excuse any kind of moral compromise simply because someone has at some other time or in some other way demonstrated moral rectitude."
If you have time, please do point where I have excused anyone for immoral behaviours just because they demonstrated moral rectitude in the past. Is it possible that you assume that all arguments coming from people whose views you do not agree with is one and the same even if it came from different people?
I was the one that responded to Paseka when she/he excused Zuma and I pointed out that even though the process is not complete, he is damaged goods. So, perhaps, before you judge others, you need to read what they say properly and not merely assume.
"But don't think for a moment that I see this as any kind of uniquely African tendency. Consider the vast number of Americans who continue to support Bush."
And of course, you are far removed from it. You call it as you see it, never biased in favour of anyone and always see things as they are.
Congratulations!
06
Gary Smith wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to LA
Letter date: 2004-11-02 16:40:03
"Your own admission about Africa leaves one to wonder whether you would be jumping to same conclusion were it Tony Leon"
Read the sentence carefully Len, those are your words. Based on your anti-white rhetoric, it's clear what you insinuated. No amount of spin doctoring will change the fact that you carry a chip on your shoulder that prevents you from judging the thoughts and opinions of white people objectively.
05
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Paseka
Letter date: 2004-11-01 12:49:59
I have to disagree with you on this aspect, Paseka.
I am of the opinion that the case is still new and there is lots of cross-examination that still has to happen, and Zuma might still turn out OK, albeit with a dented reputation.
His heroic deeds in the past, and his selfless fighting of apartheid and what it stood for cannot be used as justification of the deeds he is accused of. If half of what is alleged up to now is true, then it does call seriously into question his ability to lead the country, as he will be beholden to the likes of Schabir Shaik. Again, from the evidence presented in court, still to be tested, Schabir Shaik seems to be a smooth operator who loves to live the high life and there is little doubt that he saw his friendship with Zuma as nothing other than a free ticket.
We cannot keep excusing this form of malicious abuse of power because of apartheid. We were all affected, but would that be an excuse for me to rob the country blind?
Yes, the man has contributed a lot to society and should he be found guilty of any offence, that would have to be used on mitigation of sentence, and not as a defence in itself.
04
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-10-31 21:29:08
"Ah, Len, you just couldn't resist trying to drag the issue down to a white and black, could you. "
Actually, you are the one who dragged race into it. I merely used a leader of a political opposition party. You assumed race, which is a shame on you.
03
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption: response to
GW
Letter date: 2004-10-31 21:23:18
"Hi Len, Your response to Gary is surprising."
How was my response to Gary surprising? You argument did not indicate that my response to Gary was surprising.
As for your opinion about President Mbeki, I wish to ignore it because it does not deserve any serious debate.
Our government and judicial system is what allows you to hear of what happened between Zuma and Shaik. If our judicial system and government were not committed to the rule of law, the case against Shaik would not be there, in the first place and the media would have lost interest by now. So, to hear people like you suddenly demanding justice is odd, especially when the government is now exposed to the same rule of law that we are all exposed to.
Nelson Mandela has been hauled through the courts as president by Louis Luyt and he never excused himself. Our leaders are constantly under investigation by a media eager to make bucks out of even frivolous allegations against any sort of personality. Again, I wish to point out that Zuma has not been found guilty of anything. Instead, Shaik is on trial. Indeed, the trial is only beginning and the presentation by KPMG, though impressive, has not stood up to cross-examination.
Does it surprise you then that I ask that the judicial system be allowed to run its course in this case?
It is true that Zuma is damaged goods anyway even if his dealings with Shaik are thrown into doubt or are inconclusive. Zuma, in my opinion should do the right thing, not because of the present testimony, but to spend time to concentrate on clearing his name.
02
Jeff Robinson wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption:
response to Gary Smith
Letter date: 2004-10-31 21:18:55
Well put Gary. In his racial innuendo, Len reveals his own racism. He clearly is basing his reply to you on assumptions derived from your name only, i.e. that you are white, that you therefore are silent and unconcerned when black Africans suffer, and that you fail to acknowledge or appreciate the good work and courage that Africans like Zuma have demonstrated in their lives.
More disturbing for me is Len's willingness to excuse any kind of moral compromise simply because someone has at some other time or in some other way demonstrated moral rectitude. But don't think for a moment that I see this as any kind of uniquely African tendency. Consider the vast number of Americans who continue to support Bush.
01
LA wrote:
Letter Subject: Jacob Zuma and corruption
Letter date:
2004-10-31 21:10:20
I think the Editor needs to point out that unless you are in the courtroom listening to all the arguments, you really cannot say that you know the prevailing situation of the trial. A court is a process of accusations, counter accusations that need to be proved and tested. Merely picking up direct evidence without benefit of cross-examination betrays the knowledge of the court system by such a person.
It is not fair to castigate Zuma without at least benefit of the proper and full evidence presented in court. One has to be mindful that a court case involve direct, cross and redirect in some cases. We have only heard the one part, and all is needed is an element of doubt.
Please Editor, educate those with limited capabilities.
What is reported, though, sounds damning for the VP and if it is true that he received all these loans and were all above board, it does question his indebtedness to Shaik and leads to the conclusion that Shaik in his part might have been doing this to get ahead of the game, regardless of his intent.
With ackowledgement to Independent Online.