Posted on 05/28/2016 3:26:36 PM PDT by dontreadthis
South Africa’s parliament has approved a bill that would see the government make compulsory land purchases from rich whites and redistribute it more fairly to address racial disparities, two decades after the fall of apartheid. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) has the August elections to consider, and the party has promised to ramp up the series of measures with its Expropriation Bill, South Africa’s Mail & Guardian reports.
Having passed the National Assembly, which added changes on Thursday, the bill will now head to President Jacob Zuma’s desk for signing.
The bill combines a series of measures that would see the land expropriated “in the public interest” and “for public purpose,” and has passed with both the ANC and several opposition parties voting in favor.
"The passing of the bill by parliament is historic and heralds a new era of intensified land distribution program to bring long-awaited justice to the dispossessed majority of South Africans," an ANC statement reads.
Since the fall of apartheid, about 20 million hectares (50 million acres) of land have been transferred to black owners. According to Al Jazeera, that’s 10 percent of what the whites there owned in 1994. The ANC aims to raise the amount to 30 percent.
But concerns have been voiced the law still requires work, and that there’s a lack of clarity on how the measures will be implemented.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) voted against. The party sees a problem with the term ‘property’, fearing that the loose term would create loopholes allowing more than just land to be taken away – such as shares and intellectual property.
Another issue stemming from the legislative requirements is that the sums paid out for the land would not cover outstanding bank payments. According to DA MP Anchen Dreyer, “It is therefore possible that an expropriated owner could end up without a house or farm, and would still need to pay installments on an outstanding bank loan. Which bank would grant such loans?”
The United Democratic Movement (UDM) also voted against on the grounds that the bill would leave out those who were dispossessed of their land before the 1913 Land Act.
The bill is also likely to rely on more than just the market value of the property, and will also include the land’s “current use”, “history of the acquisition” and “the purpose of expropriation.”
One ray of light for the landowners is the possibility of appealing a court’s decision on the amount of rand paid out.
The expropriation bill could also hurt investment into South Africa, economists and farmers worry – an issue that’s especially salient after a recent drought so severe it led to farmland seizures across the border in Zimbabwe.
The government says it’s moving fast with the law so as to correct the mistakes of the past in a swift manner. It promised South Africa would not see the same type of seizures that took place in neighboring Zimbabwe – which was rapidly scaring off investors by forcing companies to close unless they gave up 51 percent of their shares to black Zimbabweans by April 1.
Longtime Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is known for being a scourge on white farmers, and it was reported his supporters now own 40 percent of all land expropriated from them. There is one major difference with South Africa: they weren’t being compensated.
“It is essential that all citizens know that their property rights are secure,” Dreyer says. “Moreover it is crucial for foreign investment that property rights are secure. The bill in its current form impedes on this confidence.”
Mango farming is prevelent in Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda.
True...I agree.
First of all, you need a visa to get out and a place to go. Good luck with THAT; both are extremely difficult to get.
Secondly, there is a law in RSA, re the amount of one's own money that is allowed to be taken out of the country and it's not a large amount.
And lastly, the ANC has impoverished many non-ANC members and ANC family members and friends, regardless off race.
But it was the blacks ( mostly Zulus ) who had slaves, BLACK SLAVES, not the whites.
Whoever said that, obviously has NO historical knowledge of either nation.
That’s true, but it was intended to impoverish whites more. You can’t revenge on somebody who could leave.
Just WHO were "necklaced" and why; do you know?
It was mostly done to those who belong to the Zulu tribe. WHY? Because they didn't belong to nor vote for the ANC and were the tribe that brought the Xhosas ( *spit* "Saint Nelson's" tribe ) into what is now the RSA, as SLAVES.
It is also far easier ( though still NOT "easy" ! ) for a RSA black to leave than a white and yes, there always were educated, wealthy blacks in South Africa.
Yes, that would have been best.
Western South Africa was a sparsely populated land with only a few thousand hunters across thousands of square miles. The Brits expanded it greatly and nabbed a large percentage of black Africans.
Simply divesting the Eastern half to the blacks and leaving the Western half to the Dutchmen who founded it hundreds of years ago would have been ideal.
I was referring to the wealth distribution. It was to help keep whites from leaving.
Communists always engage in terrorism to destabilize the territory they want to conquer. Nothing new there.
Bkmrk.
I’ve got that t-shirt, except mine’s on a white shirt.
Many white SAs already live in squatters camps. I believe there are now eight.
My wife is from SA. She visits yearly. It is a civilization in decline. Electrical power is off in most neighborhoods for several hours a day as no money was ever invested in maintenance. Crime is rampant of course, and the police are just as likely as the crooks to make off with the goods.
It has great beauty, and will probably continue to draw tourists as it is pretty hard to destroy natural beauty immediately. Affirm action and corruption are killing investment. A slow decline is evident, and likely will continue without the guarantee of property rights for business and individuals. Many SA do own firearms lawfully. But no certainty that that could be maintained.
At least SA does not yet have govt designated queer/so called unknowns bathrooms and does not dictate toilet flush capacity yet. In some ways they do maintain more freedoms than we, and one sees more self-reliance among most (kind of America in the 50s) and in general the govt is less intrusive than what we are used to.
Young adults have respect for elders, and refer to any stranger as uncle or auntie on first meeting. There is much to like about the country if one can avoid the illogic of incompetent federal operations.
I had almost the same conversation with a South African businessman around 1980. The handwriting was on the wall even back then for those who cared to notice.
I see similar handwriting on the wall here in America. The problem is, there is nowhere else to run so I guess we'll just have to stay and fight to the end and hopefully prevail. But at the rate the turd world is pouring in here and the political corruption is more rampant daily, it looks bleaker every day. If we don't massively prevail in this election, it is a looming bloodbath and possible lights out just like in Rhodesia and SA.
How to turn S. Africa into Zimbabwe!
I seem to remember the same thing happening to Zimbabwe a few years ago and that has not ended well.
Are there nuclear weapons in S.A.?
5.56mm
Re the redistribution of wealth...there are already so many roadblocks to leaving, it would shock most Westerners; especially American. And the "redistribution is just Commie stealing.
Around a third of the under 40s have left as they grew up, so most of those who remain are either old and set in their ways or middle aged and in denial. The Diaspora is disproportionately younger ones with Dominion / British citizenship and thus could migrate to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK.
The Afrikaaner speaking ones are a growing share of the white population because they can’t leave via the British empire’s legacy. And many of them ARE stuck, because of the language barrier (self imposed). Some of the younger ones live in Orania, a white only town. Georgia (the country) has offered to take some of them. Odds or intelligently, Ethiopia has said you’re Christian and great farmers, come here. Ditto for Kenya.
The atrocity is that the Netherlands isn’t taking these ethnically Dutch people with a similar language, because “multi-culturalism”, only issuing a few hundred work permits to Afrikaaners while giving asylum to lots of Muslim refugees.
Sadly, the Dutch look down their noses at the Boers and the way they speak an offshoot of their language. It's really stupid on their part and the Boers would add a great deal to that nation; unlike the savage Muslims who only add killings, being on the dole, and rapes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.