Where have all the good teachers gone?

– Teaching starts and ends with “good teachers” –

Distinguished dignatories manifested in the present Public Education Officials, Leaders of the extended community, the Principals and educators present. The founder of Edu- Build, the lecturers, our candidates for graduation today, and family members in attendance, I greet you once again this year in the name of Jesus Christ our Saviour, resurrected Lord and imminent returning King. Upon being asked to deliver the keynote again this year,  I asked the organisers if there was no one else or if they received any money from my address of last year that they felt obliged to call me back again. If any money has come, I shall be forced to get my tithe from such.

Gladys Knight an icon in her own right as a means to introducing the famous Boyz To Men hit song  “End of the road” decries the departure of true rhythm and blues music and its legends,  Mrs. Knight says “Ooh, I wane go back to a time when the music touched your heart and your soul and your mind and your body! I wane go back to a time when music made ya feel like falling in love!

One day, I was driving down the express way and this song came on the radio – I had to pull over to the side and stop coz I felt like just getting out and saying OH THEY FINALLY FOUND THE MESSAGE, THE FINALLY FOUND THE MAGIC! I wanted to tell them THANK YOU! Thank you Boyz to Men for telling this one more time :

Gladys Knight  in a paraphrased sense ask where a Nat King Cole, Marvin Gaye, the Spinners and Teddy Pendergrass have gone in her cry for a revival  of R & B soul stirring, she really laments the bankrupt state of music exemplified in remixing and hip hop genres of bootilious giratic bling- bling music dictate, which pretty much has defined the canvas of our music in 21st century embrace.

Knight upon hearing the words and lyrics of END OF THE ROAD exclaimed “they finally found it”.

I have given our address for today a title named “Where have all the good teachers gone” No different to what Gladys Knight asks in the preamble of the Boyz To Men hit “End of the Road”.

As we celebrate 17 years of democracy it has become imperative to ask the critical question what is the state of our education in such democratic embrace? For me this question as convoluted as some may make it out warrants an honest response. I think perhaps that question is best understood in asking my subject for today “ where have all the good educators gone’

In SA today according to those who know we have a pre-tertiary system that inculcates 13 million learners, 390000 teachers (educators) and more than 27000 schools. Our annual expenditure on the part of our fiscus for education constitutes a growing 20% with a steadily growth from R140billion in 2008/9 to a planned R165 billion in 2010/11. Professor Jonathan Jansen the Vice Chancellor of the Free State University is on record to assert, “no African country spends as much as 5.4% of public expenditure, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on education”

It is further argued that the no-fee schools now constitute over 64% of South African Schools in which, theoretically, learners do not pay for their education.  In 2009 alone R5,6 million was spent on 18000 schools to feed children.  Jansen states that in Higher education; a small system of 23 Universities, spending jumped form R7, 1 billion in 2001/2 to R15.3billion in 2008/2009 and is expected to stand at R21.3 billion in 2011/12. Stating these here is to make the case our education is not troubled by  a money problem, for our existing budget would be the dream of any developing nation.  We have established that we have no money shortage and our fiscus is very liberal towards education.  Yet we have the same pathetic results, where than can the problems lie ?

In his chapter South Africa’s Education System in the book ADVOCATES for CHANGE as edited by Moeletsi Mbeki, Professor Jansen identifies 5 major problems that beset our education system. I shall briefly raise them to congregate my challenge on the axis of “where have all the good teachers gone”

He identifies 5 critical challenges, whilst there could be more these for me hamper productive education system, not only  does he identify these as  the  problem areas but he equally advances for these to be the solution for the current crises.


I shall resist the temptation to say anything on the four due to the brevity of our time and the vastness of such subject field.  Suffice to say I concur with Professor Jansen and consider this his analysis as timeious, informed and speaking to the problem areas of our education system.

Those who know will confirm that Professor Jansen and I share diverse political views as our political postulations and interactions attests, yet I fear no contradiction in acknowledging unequivocally that on the assessment of his problem analysis of our education system we are in sanguine unity and extend him due credit which he rightfully deserves in both academic and praxis embrace.

The first he cites namely a lack of systematic routines and rituals. I shall use as my departure point to give meaning to my postulation “WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD TEACHERS GONE” 

Jansen, argues that the majority of schools simply do not enjoy the systematic routines and rituals that account for productive schools anywhere in the world.

It is worth noting that in his books there are only a small percentage of schools in SA exemplified in middle class white or middle class integrated where those routines and rituals have been long established under the old regime of governance in politics and education.

He highlights the following : “These rituals and routines entail schools that start on time and end on time, where teachers and principals are at school every day, where class attendance is monitored and reported, homework is issued regularly and on a planned school -wide basis.

Where regular tests are scheduled and parents informed in advance, feedback on tests and assignments is swift, carrying high informative – value for individual learners over the course of the school year. Where sports and sporting events are held regularly with required attendance for non-participating students, disciplinary codes are enforced and disciplinary cultures are not questioned, teachers carry multiple tasks of which teaching is only one. Where regular reports go to school governing bodies receive regular results on school and learner performance. Where absence from school is a serious matter and dutifully recorded and explained by the absentee learner. Where individual care is balanced with individual discipline.

Where Schedules are set long in advance and errant teachers and learners are promptly confronted about their behaviour. These schools have carefully planned budget, and fundraising from outside regularly undertaken. School grounds are clean and broken facilities are quickly repaired. Security is tight, awards feature prominently in the annual school calendar and a culture of achievement  – from academics to sports to the arts  – is instilled in every classroom”

Reading Professor Jansen I could not but say that was school the way I grew up.

The critical component for me in this analysis resonates in the imperative nature and central role of the teacher.

Our current system informed by an overstated role of organized labour is not geared towards the production of decent, competitive, rewarding education outcomes.  The prevailing situation of our education manifested in a lack of these routines and rituals argues for a departure or evaporation of educators the way we have come to know.

Yes, I was raised in apartheid education, where education was informed by a draconian system of race defined definition yet as a product of such evil system classified as Coloured Education, notwithstanding the lack of what we had as infrastructure at both Crystal High, Hanover Park (where my dad was teacher too) and later Woodlands High School in Mitchell’s Plain we had a culture of order, the same Jansen is arguing for in his routines and rituals contention.

If we fail today it is not because of a lack of resources nor is it as result of lack of Government sensitivity manifested in political commitment it is squarely a lack of an ethic of “good teachers” that have left, we do not know why and to where?

Our 2011 Matric examination was almost scuppered by teachers in the Eastern Cape who on the eve of our final exams threatened to go on strike over their desire for someone to be fired.

We live in a society where in my book there are one too many people in the education system that lacks a coherent understanding, a congruent commitment and passionate resolve to teach. I am not sure why we have so many teachers today whom I will deem ‘cheque-teachers” who simply show up at work to get paid.

In the USA and the UK no different to RSA teachers do not make great salaries, the excuse of salary therefore does not hold. What we lack with our modern teachers in which an ethic of the least for the most is advanced is a sense of will to be teachers in the most practical of meanings.

Teaching I have held has little to do with the glorified pedagogics, it  has little to do with being learned but it has to do with a will a sense of calling a vocation informed by a legacy in which one seeks to take pride at the final product of your tutelage.

Such conviction will motivate one to go to the highest level of education, prove the best in pedagogic definition and aspire to be a guru in ones subject field, yet stay in close proximity to the students one serve.

If we ask today where have all the good teachers gone, it is not to argue there are none left, for those who remained must be celebrated and Edu- Build as a institution from inception seeks to feed the first level of education namely the early childhood development system with what I choose to call “ the good old teacher ethic”.

If we ask today where have all the good teachers gone, it is a cry like that of Gladys Knight when she asks where are the real achievers who invoked a sense of reverence and discipline?

Where are those who tolerated no excuses from scholars or fellow teachers? Where are the principals who instilled a sense of dignity and holy fear, who knew how to run and manage the school as a learning centre, in which teachers were read the riot act and were held accountable in every aspect of what constitutes teaching as a profession.

Where are the inspectors of yesteryear who would show up unannounced and observed the school schedules, in praxis and theory? I remember clearly how both my parents would go to school with that knowledge as a reality hence their love for teaching and their excelling as educators.

In a season where SADTU (South African Democratic Teachers Union) has advocated a doing away with the need for such inspector- based education because the least accountability SADTU members want the least they get.

SADTU has as late as two days ago rejected the notion and intent to link the salaries of teachers with their performance. It is clear that organized labour is not serious about performance or productivity, they want to keep us immured by their politicization of our education in which they wish to dictate the meridian of or what constitutes education in which over 20% of our fiscus is spent on the rightful need for education yet the results prove a gross disparity.

When we say today where have all the good teachers gone is to ask, teachers to teach again, to let our children count and to prioritise our children’s future and desist replacing such for a shortsighted or myopic self-centred interest.  Teachers must condemn the politicizing of our education in a democratic context for teachers must teach.  Teachers must shoulder responsibility for our pathetic pass rates at all levels where 30 % has become our 100%.

What  makes us so different to an India where the acceptance rate at University level is 100% and we play around 30% as a standard?  The president  of SA, J. G Zuma in perhaps the first historic gathering of principals in Durban in 2009/2010 pleaded the fact that teaching as a 6 hour activity is in most public schools a piped-dream, for the average teaching hours are as low as 2,5 hours a day. The question becomes, if our students only have access to 2,5 hours a day at whose hand is this taking place?

In conclusion we have come to celebrate these 40 graduates today, because we are convince they will help us exclaim like a Gladys Knight they finally found it, they finally found it … for Teachers have found their love for teaching and is willing to underwrite what Jansen calls the basis routines and rituals that lends itself to productive education system where the outcomes are not a guess but a formality for the ethic of and subcultures of work proves prevalent at all turns,

If I may quote myself  from my most recent book “Through the prism of my soul” “With this hope we must echo into the abyss of indifference until our echo becomes a channel through which we can pull ourselves out. With this conviction we must ask ever so loudly where have all the good teachers gone, for we are in dire need of a tomorrow. With such determination we must see the break of dawn until we are all free from the enslavement of hypocritical irresponsibility and our children are blessed beyond measure to lead us when we no longer can lead’

Today we say Mayibuye (return) all good Teachers, Mayibuye those who love our children, Mayibuye all teachers who want to teach and please quit all those  who cannot stomach the discipline and demands of teaching in its rudimentary context.

I hope that such will be the role and intent in theory and praxis of those who are graduating today that they will give us all reason to exclaim in unison as we bellow the words of Gladys Knight “they finally found it, they finally found it….

Thank you for the privilege to share,

Dr. Clyde N. Ramalaine (Author of : Preach A Storm – the Preacher a theology of Preaching) (2011), Through the Prism of My Soul ( Political Commentary Volume) (2011) and Tradewinds are Blowing due in February 2012

Delivered at the 2nd Edu- Build Educators Graduation (November 30, 2011 – Boksburg)


The SIU Appointment: When propaganda ideology is draped in analysis!

– The public is used, for such politically motivated ideological intention –

The appointment of Judge Heath to the SIU is observed by some as a political strategy on the part of the president to secure his 2012-second term campaign. It is becoming clearer that often ideology and political positioning parade as analysis.

Let me in the beginning make it emphatic that I hold no brief for either the President nor a Judge Heath, mine is a response to what was put in public domain for consumption, debate, argument and internalization. Secondly I also have no personal vendetta against anyone for that would be simply silly. My challenge as I have advocated ad-nauseam by now is the issue of discourse and how it is shaped, coloured and used to shape public thinking, the same I challenge at times and seek to analyse also. I am not claiming to be unbiased in my thinking yet I am independent and share my views as my views only.   I am not paid by anyone to share these my views and therefore share them liberally.

If we now may get back to the issue at hand. CASAC  (The Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution) said of the appointment “This appointment marks another step in the process of rewarding individuals who independence has been compromised, dating back to the appointment of Menzi Simelane as the national director of public prosecutions.”

Professor Steven Friedman as interviewed in the front page of today’s Star argues “Its an unfortunate appointment as it places a question mark and a cloud over the credibility of the SIU” He goes on to say “Because the person appointed is a close ally and an energetic supporter of the president, it is not unreasonable for the public to conclude that he has been appointed to that position for those reasons”

Let us now attempt to make sense of what Professor Friedman is saying. Firstly Friedman claims it an unfortunate appointment, what he is therefore saying is regardless to all sane reasons that could be advanced devoid of what he seeks to narrowly interpret as a close relationship, this appointment is unfortunate.

The question must be asked unfortunate because a Judge Heath is incompetent? Unfortunate because a Judge Heath lacks the skills and expertise notwithstanding the fact that he previously led the SIU? Unfortunate because he lacks the legal scrutiny and dignity having served the legal fraternity in an impeccable manner until his retirement? Unfortunate for he is disqualified to serve anywhere as a matured legal professional only because his former client is now President of South Africa? Or unfortunate by nuanced interpretation evanescent in the eyes of those whose eyes and ears are informed by a mind that necessarily wants to see ‘evil’ lurking anywhere.

The second issue I have resonates around the commonly used term called, ‘public’. It is my view that this term is used as and when by all with neither explanation nor  definition.  Friedman says the appointment  “it is not unreasonable for the public to conclude that he has been appointed to that position for those reasons”. I am challenged with the definition of ‘public’ and shall ask that before I infer what this public constitutes Friedman be given space and time to explain his usage of ‘public’ in this sense.

Suffice to say, the public he might refer to may be a sector of the public who has arrogated a right to claim they speak or remonstrate on behalf of the public.  Why is it that difficult for people like Friedman to say, “it would not be unreasonable for me as Friedman to conclude that he has been appointed to that position for those reasons”? To argue a constituency of public definition proves challenging for me for these views are Steven Friedman’s views, why drape it in public embrace.  What political value is derived from such claim, in whose interest is such claim? As a Pastor, I have no right to say I speak on behalf of the Congregation unless it has  given me a mandate to do so. Hence my question is from what mandate does Prof. Friedman invoke this public definition for his personal views?

I guess the case can be made that the elitists to defend their personal views use the masses.  For the record the good Professor is absolutely entitled in a democratic SA to his views, even the sharing of such, all I plead for is to say these are Steven Friedman’s views and leave the public alone.

In the third instance, he argues Judge Heath is an “energetic supporter of the President” this by itself is a gross conflation of issues, the learned professor argues less informed by any empirical evidence but more by conjecture for he uses this to eventually argue his case that the appointment is linked to a political survival strategy of the president which he sees for 2012.

I shall argue that the claim of energetic supporter is an emotional opinion, which lacks corroboration. For even if the Judge as we all know did serve as a member of the president in a previous case, what makes the Judge a energetic supporter ?  How do we ascertain such qualitative defensible material evidence for such claimed ‘energetic supporter” notion.

I also do not understand why a judge’s previous legal, professional and rightful defense of a client immaterial to who the client is and what the case may have been can serve as means to disqualify him or her for public office especially if he/she has served the public with distinction. For if that be the case I am not sure how many judges and legal professionals would be allowed to serve and make a living anywhere.  This same argument one must concede hangs on the recent ad – hoc appointment of Adv. Michael Hulley, hence it could be assumed that a case is build in congruence of thinking that argues “jobs for pals’ notion as advanced by the CASAC claim.

Perhaps the more absurd argument in this ‘energetic supporter’ notion arises from the fact that anything associated with a democratically elected president is tainted with a form of proverbial evil and breathes suspicion. This notion is less informed by fact but is steered and driven in my books by a political ideology immanent in preference on the part of those who constitute public intellectuals. Friedman must tell us why he seeks to refuse to deal with the credentials, skills, expertise, and history of a Judge Heath as means to interpret such appointment.  Why does he find it correct to prove soluble in this regard?

It is the same tendencies we saw with the appointment of the Justice Mogoeng, it appears that some want to encroach on the presidency’s right to appoint for these want to tell him who to appoint for he in their minds lack the capacity or discernment and is immured by a ethic of ‘corruption’ which informs his decision, leadership and presidency.

Lastly, Professor Friedman is quoted in the Star as saying “ There has been all sorts of pressure on Zuma to step down, not to make himself available (for re-election as party boss). I think he’s decided to go for it, he’s in campaign mode”. Again the learned public intellectual must tell us the sources for his conclusive claim of  “all sorts of pressure”. What ANC legitimate structure, meeting has unequivocally exerted this pressure. If you ask if some were not happy with certain things of the ANC President, these have a right to such and it’s not a pressure but a very common thing in political organisations. I bet you if you interview some people now in the DA some will express  a view of not being happy with Helen Zille or Lekota if he is still COPE Leader.

One cannot even use the Tri Partite Alliance and say they have exerted pressure, for the appointment of an ANC presidency is decided by ANC Branches who meet in an elective conference and exercise their constitutional franchise. In fact the noise after the public sector strike of 2010 has considerably gone down, for much of that had to do with the internal political dynamics of a COSATU in which personal political agendas are not foreign. I suppose Friedman is referring to the ANCYL economic march call for a Kgalema Motlanthe to lead. Even that though a call by some informed by their personal political ambitions – the same Friedman is on record for confirming – which we all know have been exposed cannot serve as a conclusive claim of “all sorts of pressure”. Friedman therefore must explain to us (those who read the his views as expressed in the Star) where he derives his conclusive claims of ‘all sorts of pressure on Zuma to step down and not to make himself available’ from.

The crafted golden thread of appointments exemplified in a Mac Maharaj, Michael Hulley and now a Judge Heath, simply do not make sense. For he dovetails this by saying “If Zuma felt insecure ahead of Mangaung there was ‘no problem’ in his appointing of Maharaj, his long time comrade, as his spokesman or his personal lawyer, Michael Hulley, as part-time presidential legal adviser, Friedman further said ‘But the head of the SIU does not work for the president, he works for us’.

He is correct to argue that the boss of the SIU works for us if us suggests the RSA citizenry, yet he is wrong for denying the president his constitutional right to appoint people as he deems fit. He is also wrong for interpreting the appointment in a myopic sense to be purely defined along ‘friendship for political survival” notion.

This ideologically informed ‘analysis’ does harm to the credibility of a Judge Heath not withstanding the fact that the honorable Judge had served without incident in his illustrious career which essentially could have been the reason why he received the nod.  His sin is having defended a client. Can the case be made that every attorney who ever defended a criminal is not to be trusted? For neither the criminal claim nor the corruption contention holds in this appointment.

What one may deduce from the likes of CASAC and Steven Friedman is the veiled stated concept of corruption that is possible with a Judge Heath appointment, this if implied is an indictment to the President and Judge Heath for it is bereft of fact, lacking in substance and is in formed by utter conjecture. Yet this parades to shape readers thinking in a specific propaganda rhetoric of ideology draped in analysis

Does what Friedman and CASAC suggest truly constitute the only way to understand the appointment of the SIU boss, devoid of reason. Again I shall ask, why?

Respectfully submitted

Bishop Clyde N.S Ramalaine

Independent Observer author of “Tradewinds are Blowing” (forthcoming) February 2012

Is Economic Redress done and dusted with this Disciplinary hearing?


                            – Economic redress has enemies in all corners –

In the aftermath of the now well covered and analysed ANC NDC hearing and its counter arguments, perhaps it is time to ask the question is the Economic Redress debate or potential CODESA 3 buried in this DC hearing and if so what could be the reasons for such legitimate case to be filed in the infamous cabinet 13 (dustbin)?

From the first day the ANCYL raised the issue of Economic Redress and an economic revolution as their new mantra, it discovered that such debate has enemies in all sectors of what constitutes the South African community. It found that not only are the objectors to such debate present in external oppositional definition but also in organisational context. With the hearing now up for an appeal the question that captured my mental occupation was did whomever succeed to reduce our just and overdue call into an dispensable like all  individual defined as Julius Malema.

Let me also for the record repeat my assertion, I am on record for having said that Malema in my books is not by design the face of this economic redress but he is by-default the face of such economic redress contention.

This means an error is committed on both sides on the one side there are those who truly believe dealing with a Malema in whatever way and by whatever means will finally stop this newfound energy to argue for such claim. On the other hand those who support a Malema have defined Malema and less the ANCYL as the true champion of such cause without whom the economic struggle cannot do. Both groups often are led by their emotions and at times prove blackmailing from those who disagree. The multiplicity of views that has played out in our public discourse clearly draw these definitive lines as to what this hearing means for a justified call for overdue redress.

I thought what could potentially be the reason for a stifling and ultimate death of the economic redress debate and herewith shall cite fifteen possible reasons as my prism of thought on such.

1. The economic redress debate is long no more a black and white debate, for since post-1994 there are a few very high powered black individuals and families who truly have been fast -tracked out of such debate fuelled by empowerment deals and all manner of opportunities as visibly but stirred apartheid economy presented.

Today in SA this powerful group of black elites and new wealthy ones, has formed a wedge of protection for white wealth and a gulf of aspiration for blacks who aspire and dream of a day in which economic freedom will not be for a selected few.  When I argue a hedge for white wealth, it is to say, if there is truly today economic redress in SA, the very wealth obtained by white facilitation and share options, loans and debts bed rocked in political connectedness, will be eroded and also come under threat and question. The Economic redress debate therefore holds a threat to both white and black elite.

2. The post- apartheid black elite is not a pure business elite, which has a track record of entrepreneurial pursuit, manifested in history, (there are a few who date from before democracy) but the majority fell into these opportunities that legislation compels and dictates.

The challenge therefore is if these are not organic entrepreneurs but politically empowered ones it raises the critical question is the debate potentially stifled by their conjoined roles of calling for a national democratic revolution and from the same mouth defending this apartheid based economy as shareholders in such. Does this conflation of political power not confuse the debate, for if in practical sense I was empowered by a BEE deal, that made me part of the Black Elite, at the hands of a Anglo? How do I call for economic redress definitive in mass beneficiary context and not hurt myself ?

3. Is it not possible that the very ones who were empowered constitute a carefully selected few, handpicked by those who illegitimately own SA Inc, for the very intention of denying the very masses their rightful claim of such. Can the case be made that these were ‘headhunted’ for their political powers and reasonable appetite to prove soluble to allow individual rights to rule over community rights.

4. True economic redress will call for the land issue starting with the rightful claim of firstly the Khoisan people and then the Black majority and their equal claim to the mineral issue to be discussed in glaring terms. As we know from pass debates and as Malema and the ANCYL have found in South Africa talking about land is a taboo subject and an aorta for some. These want SA to remain the way it is where 86% is owned by 12% of the population entrenched by a sacrosanct constitution that inculcates a bill of rights that entrenches the rights of individuals be such in ownership etc.

5. Economic Redress does not resonate well with post apartheid Black intellectuals for these argue from the vestiges of liberalist thought construct in which they maintain the contours of this debate informed by a contention of a democracy as a superlative to redress. These now defend democracy as a democracy that must not find meaning cognisant of apartheid past, injustices and they advocate for a South African identity of equality that decries the injustices of the racially real and co-existing duplexes.

They argue we must work for a South African citizenry that enforces equality yet such equality is not visible in the abject poverty  and abuse of the Northern Cape where mines have raped communities and left them high and dry Nor  the pain and agony of a Lenyenye deep in Limpopo.  The same academics argue for a tolerance and restraint and a respect for civil liberties unconscious of the now clearly forgotten past for their homes, their swimming pools, their hunting expeditions, their “rooi – wyntjies” with white academics have given them a sense of being devoid of the black masses, affording them  a status equal to those who determine the meridian if intellectualism.

6. It is my view that some of the icons of our struggle have in recent years proven less discerning of the threat of unemployment and poverty and have equally fallen into the trap of wealth which blinds them from seeing the plight of the people for these plead for a patience when the people have been patient while their children and grandchildren  live large, in foreign countries  and their estates multiplied with international pop stars who supports their foundations with many euros, dollars and much publicity. Yes money does change our tune.

7. Corporate SA’s response to this debate remains that of recalcitrance, it remains a hostile response less informed by dialogue and reason but evidenced in fear tactics and rhetoric.  It is hostile for it shows itself clearly in the BUSA rumblings it shows itself in the commentary of leading business captains that argue the debate is not to be embraced.

The ANCYL Youth League tabled a Nationalisation debate, this may be wrong or right yet Corporate SA never engaged such, never gave their counter to such, nor their solution for this impending catastrophe. One knows Corporate SA is not serious when Black Business expresses their misgivings and distrust with their White Business counterparts, as shown over and over again and again. The truculence one senses are mind-boggling and the defiance is more than mortal.

8. The economic redress may never rise because organized labour, the voice and vanguard of the proletariat  or workers defined as poor is in bed with the owners of the means of production the same they argue, toyi- toyi against and meet in chambers yet they will share in a month from today dividends and argue why their  companies and investment products did not perform as anticipated.

They will trade their struggle gear of red t-shirts, revolutionary caps and khaki waist coats for gala dinners tuxedo’s and shareholder Giorgio Armani suits and share the spoils of the non job creating economy and watch their bank balances grow, while they speak against the subject of crass materialism manifest in tenderpreneurs when they plowing at the same trough.

9. The economic redress may fail for in this depressing global context first world countries stagger under the uncontrollable weights of  challenge of economic crises. If the USA, Europe and others are the base, it confirms that the globe have not found solutions for the ticking timebombs of unemployment  that races expeditiously to its unknown end in all nations as floods of the only true majority of the world according the UNCHR statistics, namely the youth begin to express their dissatisfaction.

Their discontent is not having what they rightfully deserve as job opportunities, and access to education and economic opportunities. With the globe not finding solutions and jobs being shed all over, the case can be made the challenge of economic redress must find a backburner somewhere less visible for macro economic must take centre stage. The November figures for manufacturing  as a sector shows grave job shedding in South Africa  context.

10. The economic redress may be stifled by the very Plan delivered by the Planning Commission, which emphasized an entrenching of the known typical business focus dictates of a hidden GEAR pretext. The Planning Commission delivered their report of where we should be; it asks again that the masses be patient. It argues in its preamble that SA has the means, wealth, skills and resources to eradicate poverty, yet it argues for give and takes without disturbing the equilibrium of economic well-being, an impossibility in practical implementation.

It argues that change is a process and yet it entrenches the dictates of constitutional expression, which in my assessment prove the very undoing of the economic redress debate, when such fail to challenge the wealth of those who have but rather entrenches such wealth.

My fear with this plan lays not in its preamble but in its workability. One wishes that 3 basic areas could have been identified and defined in flagship context for dealing with a future plan. Yet we make the same mistake so akin to Democratic SA, where we seek to address all issues when we cannot do all as proven by our post democratic history. I am still arguing for a flagship initiative on planning immanent in 3 critical areas with clear milestones.

11. The Dream of economic redress can fail for South Africans have been sold the idea of a rude, unruly and controversial Malema and these believe the economic debate is only a means to an end for a Malema and his cohorts to steal more from state coffers.  The lobby groups for this argument of such abuse of the poor have gained momentum and these continue to spread the “gospel” of Malema plus Economic redress equals corruption, hence a support of the economic redress debate is a support for an individual, the same they argue has a penchant for the entrapments of capitalistic self -centredness.

12. The economic redress question could easily be usurped by opposition politics that may find the ANC’s silence on such redress, and departure of an individual as a pristine opportunity to argue for filing that space, to raise the right issues that ANCYL raised proving the ANC as reluctant

13. Economic redress, will remain a pipe-dream for as long no formal debate around the First Nation status of the indigenous people of South Africa as a UNDRIP resolutions is entertained in our Cabinet, National Parliament and Provincial Legislatures. The debates have not been forthcoming and the current traditional affairs bill in draft form does no justice to the rightful claim of the Khoisan people, for it equates them a status similar to other traditional leaders at the expense of their internationally recognised and declared right of First Nation Status the same no Parliament in Democratic SA has ever debated, for reasons less known but open for mighty suspicion.

14. Economic Redress, can be court cased and held in Constitutional Court corridors as those who have the means demand the right to have their constitutional rights respected arguing in the name of democracy against such redress as legitimate case and find sentimental support in such legal context.

15. Economic redress runs the risk of being done in for Provincial Land Claims Commissioners it can be argued have proven soluble and have shown disrespect for the rights of the masses to own if some finalise settlements and claims may attest as prove of such corrupt practices in which claims can be twigged to have outcomes that works against the claimants instead of for them.

Yet having cited all of this, I hold the hope out that the debate will not die, I argue that new faces will emerge, new voices will rise that may or may not be in ANC organizational context.  Perhaps the ANC may now see the need to fill the gap with a true conviction that the masses are owed their rightful economic claims. Perhaps it is time for the Church to begin again to lead this process similar to how it led when the ANC was in exile and the voices diminished.

This is indeed a Kairos Moment that demands leadership for economic redress manifested in economic freedom in my lifetime is more than a slogan but a legitimate demand, the same which cannot be filed in cabinet 13, it will be a travesty of justice, and reduce us to all other African Countries who firstly went politically free and 50 years later is yet to find such economic freedom, when only a handful of blacks are beneficiaries of empowerment the same who now compromise the very empowerment of the masses.

Respectfully submitted.

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine,

Is an independent observer and this article comes courtesy of his soon to be published book ”Tradewinds are Blowing” – thoughts on contemporary Global political discourse.

Malema the end- ANCYL a divided house?

He came he saw and was slain. The recent mutterings on the in-fights amongst ANCYL executive leadership attest to the reality of politics and confirms the now well known slogan, “there are no permanent enemies nor permanent friends in politics”.

If newspaper reports are correct, the tussle for the new president of the ANCYL and its supposed new vision is mounting. The question is how did ANCYL get to this now slain status of it’s once vocal or should I say feared Malema leadership. The Malema leadership was never not under dispute from the onset, it was never a leadership without acrimony.

Consistent accusations claims and counter claims of vote rigging, his dictatorial attitude by which he offloaded provincial leaderships, individuals and those he saw as enemies. Malema did not get to the proverbial smaller Mount Everest of ANCYL leadership as a natural choice but he fought his way to that summit. The signs of the fighting and maneuvering was seen in conferences becoming events of shame, where naked bums were on display, hotels left in squabbles, damaged to property was reported and Provinical structures left in polarized context. Let us not  forget the likes of  a Reuben Masoga who was read the riot act by arbiter Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe who effectively dealt with him when he threatened to go to court.

I guess I am trying to say to understand the unraveling ANCYL leadership contestation today is to understand this Malema leadership had some cheap glue keeping it’s parts together and anyone that knows would have anticipated at some time with some heat would let  the glue melt and prove a fractured picture of such claimed unity. Regardless to how united and brave a face Malema and his Executive shown on the last press statement, those who know is it clear the ANCYL  Executive is a divided house, and with provincial teams showing disdain it is clear Malema can not count on a unified ANCYL.

Malema’ s vocal claims in the wake of his proverbial red- carding as we already said was no sign of power but a sign of weakness as a severely wounded “General” who has his entire combatants already shackled and tied up in enemy control, cry “let us take them on”. Who was Malema really calling for as the proverbial wounds begin to show in emboldened blood pouring political death? He was shouting into an abyss of nothing and nowhere, he was calling into a dark pit of rhetorical retort. His was a call into a valley of the slain. By the time he called he did so from a make belief rally of UNISA Press briefing his “troops” already were canvassing their personal political ambitions sold the concept that Malema is history and you can have a future, “why tie yourself to a proverbial dead horse?” Such is the context and meaning of politics in praxis that there are no permanent enemies not friends.

Saying Malema and the co-suspended executive ANCYL have recourse is to say they have a constitutional right enshrined to appeal. It is therefore to be expected that the ANCYL briefing set for today as promised will outline the reasons for appeal, citing the process as flawed, intent on the part of the NDC. One may expect as was seen already that a case will be made that the the disciplinary hearing was a witchhunt that was premised on villification and intent. It is to be expected that individuals making up the NDC, will be highlighted to argue for the ‘victims’ disenfranchisement. The ANCYL will use the 2012 elective conference as the base for their appeal.

Yet having cited all of this, the question that needs answering on the part of the ANCYL is if they knew the process was this flawed why did they not upfront state and argue such, but to submit this now to when you already have subjected yourself to such NDC not once but twice in the case of Malema is simply not making sense. Malema will contend that they are victims of a campaign. Malema will argue that the unseen forces are dictators yet Malema himself is known to be a dictator if the views of some in ANCYL embrace is true. Malema has attacked the ANC and it’s leaders even more now than ever before, does this press briefing not justify a new case for disciplinary action?

The argument is can this so called united face being presented today by the ANCYL serves as a temporal glue to keep it together when the ANCYL house is divided? Perhaps the best way to see this press briefing is to argue, it is the last argument as Malema is fading on the horizon of the political canvas for it is my view that the ANCYL is a divided house, that the very ANCYL leadership members are at each others throats.

Perhaps for me as I have consistently argued that the bigger casualty is the critical issue of Economic Redress, which is a rigtful overdue and correct debate. Such economic redress is not a political football as both the ANCYL, ANC and all with vested interests have sought to reduce the subject to. Malema in my books remains the by- default face of such economic redress though he abused the trust this rightful quest thrust upon him by proving cheap and having clay feet as one who preach one thing but live something else. His Ratanang Trust is our rightful economic redress’ undoing. His penchant for the very apartheid based economy offerings prove our debate as soluble. Malema and all those who want us to see the economic redress as a individual namely Malema, has done our claim a disservice, yet we must thank him and the ANCYL for having tabled the subject.

Perhaps as the dust is settling now, the fact that a claim is made that that the ANCYL constitution was altered in the wake of a suspecting suspense for there are those who claim this issue of Constitutional Amendment never served in the 24th ANCYL conference, yet there are others who out of emotional loyalty will argue it did serve. be that as it may, in my books this will sink Malema into history for he came he saw and was slain.

In conclusion I still contend, Malema came he saw and he was slain and as the days continue he will be a fading shot star that tried to prove larger than the organization who has a very long history. Until then we should expect rumblings in the ANCYL context for it is not held together in sanguine unity but with a cheap glue, to be eroded at anytime.

Bishop Clyde N. Ramalaine
Independent Observer

Does the ANC disciplinary hearing pose a direct challenge to the ‘kingmaker’ status of the ANCYL for the future?

“Does the ANC even need ‘kingmakers” ? 

The ANC Disciplinary hearing ruling has been made, the ANCYL President Julius S. Malema, along with the other 5 ANCYL Executive members are suspended all to varying degrees. Yet the focus is on Malema, the recommendation of the DC constituting it’s ruling on the charges calls for a 5 year suspension of Malema.

Whilst opinions, analysis and commentary some in grave conflict (which bodes well for public intellectuals to disagree), is liberally shared and others who bitterly makes the disciplinary hearing out to be a kangaroo court, my contemplation vacillates on what this disciplinary hearing means for the now accepted ‘kingmaker’ status of the ANCYL. 

The history of the ANC in it’s  near 100 years of existence does not attests to at anytime an entire sitting executive of the Youth League leadership suspended. That by itself is new and a precedent in organizational context. Yet much as that may be the case, I am less concerned with that and will rather postulate the biggest blessing or curse this hearing in my books brought is the challenge of the ANCYL as ‘kingmaker’ of ANC presidents. The history in particular the recent history has seen a phenomenon in which the youth and women’s leagues became the ordained ‘kingmakers’ of presidents in ANC embrace and as outflow of that South African presidency.

We all know that it was the critical role the combination of the two decorated and venerated leagues that have primarily determined the presidency and recall of a Mbeki. The Youth League under the late  Peter Mokaba leadership steered the way for a Thabo Mbeki election and ultimately presidency. Yet in 2007 when  Zuma was elected it was the same Youth League under a Fikile Mbalula (now Minister of Sport) and the Women’s League who influenced if not directed such outcome of a Zuma election into an ANC presidency.  Much credit is often given to Tripartite members yet in the final analysis it was the combination of the respective Leagues who pulled it off for Zuma.

This is exactly the reason why many of us could not understand Mbeki’s defense to stand in 2007 at Polokwane, for it was  precisely the fact that he failed to appreciate the reality that both these Leagues had already endorsed Zuma as the preferred candidate. Mbeki stood, as he readily explained many times because there was a nomination, fair  could be the answer, yet such is not historically conscious of the reality of such ‘kingmakers’ who already shared their choice for a new leader.

Needless to say it was the Youth League under a newly elected almost unknown leader Julius Malema who prophesied the end of Mbeki in late September 2008  as president of the Republic of South Africa, when he famously declared “He, Mbeki will not serve longer than this week” if  I am correct he swore that this his prophesy shall come to pass.

When I argue the curse of this exaggerated ‘kingmaker’  status it is to raise the challenge it directly presents that such status in which the highest bidder could literally buy and influence this constituency less by policy but by any means necessary to vote for him or her in a display of celebrated individualism and less concerned with the organizational well-being.

This ‘kingmaker’ status we have been told can be bought by the right amount, assets, shares etc.  Tripartite leaders such as Vavi and Nzimande have been warning that votes are for sale, and can be bought by those who have fat cheque books.

Perhaps the blessing of this ruling is  that it perhaps begins the process to rectify the abuse of the very constituency in ‘kingmaker’ status context as a commodity, and to remove such status, that often lends itself to factionalism that informs a jostling for power and office. Leaders in the ANC in seniority have often fostered this misguided ‘kingmaker’ status of particularly the ANCYL, perhaps less of a Women’s League and now recently the Veterans League.

Yet now we stand at this historic for some yet challenging for us occasion in which the executive of the ANCYL chief ‘kingmaker’ was charged and found guilty by a duly constituted disciplinary hearing informed by the ANC constitution. Such hearing has made its findings known and such findings attest to a recommendation of suspension of the entire executive and to  larger degree a Malema who as we already know was found guilty before of similar misdemeanor, the face of such charge sheet and his faithful lieutenant  Floyd Shivambu who I have long time held needs to get proper training on public relations, to serve as ANCYL spokesman.

My contention, is does this  ruling in any sense remotely even perhaps leave the ANCYL forever diminished in power as a “kingmaker” ?  This means can the case be made that the ANCYL kingmaker status has suffered severely because of this ruling ?

At another level is the “kingmaker” status only immanent in South African presidency? Does it prove irrelevant if the ANC president was not to be the next National or South African President. I guess I am asking was the kingmaker status a critical practice in the elongated history of the ANC? Or does such only find impetus and meaning in SA presidency embrace?

If such has no real bearing at what critical point in the illustrious history of the ANC did  this “kingmaker’ status erupt and came to being?  In fact does the ANC even need this exaggerated claimed kingmaker status as praxis ?

Having asked these questions, I shall venture to argue that today’s disciplinary hearing ruling has ask a question is the Youth League’s status as ‘kingmaker’ an invincible one? I shall contend this ruling has said the Youth league is nothing but a Youth League and the mother body will not be directed by the youth when such child proves rebellious, disrespectful, and divisive.

Perhaps the other part of the Malema legacy resonates in this that under his stewardship the powers of a ‘king maker status has been diminished. I know there will be those who will caution me on rushing to this conclusion, they would advocate the Youth league, can exist and prove just as much a challenge without a Juju, the reality is the Youth missed the chance to organize themselves devoid of individualism and hopelessly waited to late to begin to let more members speak as the last 2 months attests.

They have made a tactical error in attacking an individual from the vestiges of individualism. They have allowed the economic redress debate (a real and not going away issue) be consummated in the utterances of an individual namely Malema who has made a litany of blunders that have led to this ruling. Notwithstanding the fact that Malema has constitutional recourse and that such process may prove protracted and may ultimately only stand at Mangaung as the final authority, this ruling has done damage as anticipated and it will be difficult for Malema to make a comeback from such.

My question therefore is will we see through and because of this a new type of ‘kingmaker’ emerging in the ANC, or will the ‘kingmaker’ status thing to which many have endeared themselves informed by their rightful political ambitions forever prove a thing of the past?

I shall go one step further and ask what are the implications for those who have pinned their hopes on the diminished ‘kingmaker’, that have been reduced today perhaps to its rightful size. SAFM carries as to be expected a defiant Malema, yet I have said before these are not out of strength but out of weakness for it sounds only befitting for Malema at this time to pronounce as he does, for he is moving into the sunset of political careerism at the speed of light. Malema calls the real leaders of the ANC to now stand up and be counted, it sounded more like, can those who have been in my corner please make known their views, or are you leaving me hanging to dry alone.

I have asked these questions for it is clear, that today’s findings prove watershed in context and as someone said a rubicon that the ANC had to cross if it had any hope of being seen as organization held together by the conviction of values informed by vision and actualized in discipline.

I have deliberately not dealt here with my understanding of what today means for the  economic redress debate which some clearly hope will die with Malema, such I shall attempt shortly.  Yet the ‘kingmaker’ status is tonight not so effervescent as it used to be before the ruling of the disciplinary hearing in which suspension was the order of the day. Let us not forget that Malema like all others have recourse and as we have heard from a vocal and defiant Malema, they will appeal.

Bishop Clyde N. Ramalaine

Independent Observer, author of “Tradewinds are Blowing”

Is this the end for Herman Cain?

Is the pizza truck stuck on the freeway with four flats?

A few weeks ago, Cain became the front runner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidency elections.  He bolted to the front of the line hawking the media with his now less explained ill-understood and almost secretly designed in economist embrace, 9-9-9 Tax reform campaign.

Cain went on from their and ‘defeated’ the Perry and Romney candidates  in the primary debates hosted. I then postulated he may have a steamy run but it will not be long before he will be made out a liability as America is simply not ready for a black on black 2012 presidential race. I argued than it is just a matter of time, before he is offloaded.

Well, its November 9, and the tradewinds are blowing in fact the cross winds are all over this presidential hopeful for he stands now accused of  sexual misconduct exemplified in at least 3 women laying claims to his advances. The merits of the cases may be questionable and perhaps never even tested, yet the damage will stick.

Firstly Cain’s biggest undoing is his ill-advised handling of the matters. He firstly denied knowledge than he relented but seek to accuse a former party member and worker who has shifted to the Perry campaign as the culprit for revealing this sordid affair. Often in cases like this much of the impact is either emphasized or blown away by the handling of the issue in communication context.

It is clear Cain, proves less consistent in the handling of these accusations, he seems visibly annoyed, he pokes accusations at others for leaking the information. He conceded he made a statement, or a comment to one of the ladies by asserting, he stood next to her and said you 5 feet just as tall as my wife. Whether these and other unknown information will ultimately be proven as truthful and qualifying for justified reason for him loosing the nomination is a matter of speculation.

Cain has made a growing number of gaffe’s along this nomination campaign. From calling the “Walk on Wall Street” protestors stupid and ill-advised and asserting they should blame themselves for not having jobs. He continued and made a very insensitive comments on  border security the same he firstly made off as a joke and later defended as his position. This coming from a potential candidate who seek to convince Americans in this depressing economic context he cares for them.

The truth is Cain brought this on himself for his handling of this showed him out to be insensitive to the American voters who as we speak, suffer economically, is depressed with the claims of perpetual recessions antics.

Cain on the sexual claims saga concedes there were settlements  paid for this actions though some of them came on 20 years ago. I am not in the least purporting to adjudicate the veracity of the cases for such is for a court, I am dealing with the perpetual meandering and blundering of a potential Republican Nominee hopeful, who simply do not know how to set a foot in the right direction.

All kinds of theories are advanced  by those who know but what stands out is a confused conundrum of speculation for it does not take rocket science to know who stands to benefit from this? This whilst one of the women who accused Cain is consulting her attorney and  yet equally pleads for anonymity.

We all know with the American press and its non-gratifying appetite for a salacious story starved by a squeaky clean Obama, anything will work if you put a spin on it for this is an election season and with a lackluster campaign of Republican Nominee hopefuls it seems more a like testorone based campaign of who is the stud in the pack for who knows what else in the famous infidelity embrace will still be revealed and by whom, accused for  what aim?

Sharon Bialek accuses Herman Cain today openly of an alleged sexual harassment incident that assumedly took place in a car, with no witnesses, fourteen years ago.  This claim raises many questions many more unanswered ones. To be truthful these questions are more directed at the accuser for clarification.

Firstly what took a Ms. Bialek so long, we are told it happened fourteen years ago. I am not raising the time issue as an excuse, but rather to ask, since Ms. Bialek by her own admission was involved at the time in a steady supportive relationship and had all the access to legal opinion and statute of liberty rights, why did she not lay a charge then? She also states that the claims informed by time has prescribed in lapsed time.

Secondly, in the interview conducted by CNN anchor Piers Morgan, he asks Ms. Bialek if she will press charges to which she replies no, she has no intention to press such charges in fact judging by when it took place it can now safely be argued that she never saw the need to have such charges laid.

Again why not when she was traumatized by it back then and raising it now confirms she is still traumatized by such. The third issue I have a challenge with is Ms. Bialek says she just want him to admit that this happened.

It is clear that Ms. Bialek must live on Mars to even remotely think any politician would admit to such when he knows he will not have charges pressed against him. Why would he volunteer such admission with no impending and real threat when there is so much  at stake namely the White House.

My conclusion on the accusation is that it comes in handy when he is squaring of as very potential Republican Party candidate. One can be forgiven for assuming the timing of these claims prove prolific for fellow contenders, for a sexual claim such as this can only do damage in this season.

It is possible that Ms. Bialek was advised by her legal representatives that her case will not stand in the courts of law hence a public relations campaign of this form, in which she advocates Cain to admit, is the best way of hurting his political ambitions. We have seen it before how sexual demeanor claims can sink candidates, hence is this going to sink Cain’s hopes of  being nominated?

Off course sexual misdemeanor constitutes an act that must be condemned and punished for it in a case such as this confirms the repugnant and sick perceptions that women are mere objects of male lust and pawns for their pleasure. If anyone seeks to abuse his position such as that it must be condemned with the strongest of opinion and legal conviction.

I think these claims much as a court case will find it very difficult to prove and find in the accusers favor, along with other similar claims is enough to let the Herman Cain pizza truck stall on the freeway with four flat tyres.

Off course a case can be made that America is not ready to have two black man square off for the White House, but that is a debate for another day.

If Cain fails today it is because of Cain himself, if Cain fails today it is due to the fact that the Republican campaign is not an issue based campaign in which the aspects of policy reform against a Democratic sitting and very domestically strong president.

The Republican Campaign in my assessment is informed by the lowest levels and form of energy in which the best candidate will ultimately win by conjecture more than anything meaningful.

Bishop Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

Independent Observer and author of “ Preach a Storm, Live a Tornado – The Preacher: A Theology of Preaching

Making sense of the Conrad Murray guilty verdict – I guess someone has to to pay!

Was justice served, I think not !

The jury has returned the verdict, Dr. Conrad Murray last physician of the iconic pop star Michael Jackson is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It is true that the inexplicability of Jackson’s final hours were laid bare in this trial . The extent of his dependence on substances proved shocking.

It is common that whenever a star die we the people want answers. It was no different on August 15, 1977 when the brief father in law of Jackson, the enigmatic Elvis Presley died. The theories around his death ran wild and fast as a culprit was sought to be blamed even though he died by himself in his house. Many years later the rumors came and gone but the questions remain unanswered at least for those who believe Elvis didn’t take a toxic cocktail that resulted in his untimely death.

The truth, whenever someone as colossal and humongous in stardom dies at a relative young age questions will be raised as to who is responsible for his death? It simply becomes a quest to find someone guilty regardless to what. Often the entire lifestyle of the person is discounted as a means for potential cause, as those who know pontificate someone did it.

We undeniably have to respect the verdict that found against Conrad Murray, notwithstanding the fact that it is my view on appeal the verdict will not stand.

Whilst no finding may ever bring back the unequaled in status King of Pop, it helps those who want to blame someone for his death and provides an opportunity for closure so I would hope.

I have lost more respect for the Jackson family who knowing of Michael’s elongated condition proved less present to lend a hand, to help him get help. Till today they think by denying Michael’s addiction history and ways, will somehow save Michael’s legacy. Michael Jackson for all of us across a number of generations remains a beloved icon yet we know he was not perfect so to try and tell us something else is sophistic thinking to we live on Mars is not doing justice to Michael Jackson’s legacy. He was indeed human hurting and in excruciating pain the same I argue his family who enjoys every bit of limelight for their diverse image reasons and economic welfare proved insensitive to.

Yet to absolve a Michael from irresponsibility is necessarily not to be truthful. I cannot speak on behalf of a Murray, for he had his own hand in maintaining the irresponsibility of a Michael. He made blunders as a physician particularly of we must deal with praxis on that dreadful night. It is clear he flouted the Hippocratic oath, the same he swore to uphold.

I shall however argue that by the time he became MJ’s physician the culture of substance abuse on the part of Jackson was well engrained. It is my view that much as we seek to apportion blame on a Murray, in the final analysis those who shout today justice is, done absolves Jackson of his own role, a role that attests to how many aliases he used to feed his precarious addiction habits.

If the Jackson family shout today justice is served they must contend with the truth that Murray did not introduce a Jackson to substance abuse, that a Murray in all probability tried to do what a controlling patient demanded. If Murray is at fault it is because he allowed his appreciation and who Michael Jackson was to interfere with his role of being a physician.

We all know how demanding our celebrated stars can become, we read of how others confirm the irresponsible habits a Michael Jackson as one who begged and demanded demerol to fall asleep, even when medical staff was advising that to be a violation.

Murray’s sin is perhaps his lack of discerning as to what his fundamental role as physician was as oppose to his admiration for a Jackson. I can see how the stature and who Michael is could have interfered with anyone who was in close proximity to him. It is precisely this issue that I think is lost in this case.

The question may be advanced am I advocating a blanket innocence on the part of a Conrad Murray certainly not yet I think he is made the fall guy for a history of addiction and substance abuse that predates him serving Michael with vaults of propofol.

I can appreciate the need to find closure on the part of family and fans. I equally can prove sensitive to the unanswered questions that were born in the aftermath of June 25, 2009. I can appreciate the torture a Michael Jackson by his own admition had been subjected to.

I hear the cry of a soul culled as his last ever impromptu recording in slur stutter pleads for a hospital for the children that needs it so desperately. We all know Michael love children and for all doubters who wanted to make him out to be a beast feeding of innocent children this last recording as captured by a Murray attests to the sincerity and genuineness of one who snares to help others who are vulnerable though he was in his own pain.

Yet as much all the aforementioned weighs heavy I disagree with the jury even if the case is not murder but a more palatable culpable involuntary manslaughter charge with a much lesser sentence, Dr. Murray has by default become the face of the “perpetrator” whom family and fans want to keep accountable for this untimely and less easily accepted death of an icon of the 20/21st century exemplified in performance.

I guess someone unlike in the case of a Elvis is held accountable, someone can be blamed, someone will serve jail time this night, but if we can call this justice we definitely cannot face tomorrow.

Bishop Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

Independent observer author of “Through the Prism of My Soul” An Anthology of Contemporary Political Commetary and Analysis