News of Swaziland’s bloody week of strike action has at last made it to the international media.
I noted yesterday (7 March 2008) that the news of police brutality had largely been ignored by Swaziland’s government-controlled radio and television and also by the international media.
Now, the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN), a news and features agency, has alerted the world to what is going on.
(Incidentally, it quotes in its own report information it has taken from reading Swazi newspapers, so we can thank the local press for alerting the world to what is going on in Swaziland.)
Under the headline SWAZILAND: Worst Labour Strife in a Decade, IRIN reports (6 March 2008), ‘A bloody week of the worst labour strife in a decade has exposed cracks in the Swazi government's poverty-alleviation plan of creating thousands of low-paying jobs by promoting a textile industry.’
The report continues, ‘In the strike action, which began on 3 March, workers participating in peaceful marches to demand better salaries have been teargassed and beaten by police, and at least a dozen have reportedly been injured. More than 16,000 workers, most of them women, have been affected by the strike action.
‘Local media reported that the Swaziland police carried out unprovoked attacks on peaceful marchers on the first day of the strike. Several injuries were reported after riot police shot teargas into a line of marchers in the Matsapha Industrial Estate outside the central commercial town of Manzini.’
IRIN reports that Alex Fakudze, president of the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU), told the Industrial Court on 5 March that factory owners had instructed the police to assault strikers. Industrial Court President Peter Dunseith ordered the police to permit peaceful picketing outside company premises.
Unlike the Swazi media reporters in their own newspapers, IRIN then offers some background on the textile industry in Swaziland, which it says is ‘dominated by garment-making factories owned by Taiwanese immigrants who came to Swaziland in 2000/02 to take advantage of preferential trade conditions with the US under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, creating tens of thousands of employment opportunities.
IRIN says, ‘The country is one of the few that has diplomatic ties with Taiwan and does not recognise the People's Republic of China. Taiwan returned the favour by encouraging its garment-makers to invest in Swaziland.
‘In turn, the Swazi government has offered tax holidays to incoming firms, and constructed factory shells that are sometimes leased for free of charge to large employers.’
‘IRIN continues, ‘Asian-owned textile firms, mainly located at the Matsapha Industrial Estate, offered the only significant job creation in the past decade, and led to the development of a new industrial park at Shiselweni, the regional capital in the south of the country, where some firms have set up shop.
‘Low wages and "cultural conflicts" bedevilled labour relations from the outset, but came to a head when a strike vote was approved by 30 percent of the nation's 16,000 SMAWU members, with the remainder abstaining, according to the union.
‘The union seeks to raise wages by 12 percent. “Textile workers are forced to live on mediocre salaries,” said Fakudze. “How can breadwinners be expected to provide for their families on just R600 ($77) a month?”’
To see more of this report click here
See also
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI MEDIA AND TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Friday, 7 March 2008
ONE LAW FOR THE SWAZI PRINCE
Swaziland’s newspapers have revealed that a member of the ruling elite has received special treatment from the police in a criminal case.
This has prompted one journalist to ask whether the police ‘are a tool for the ruling class’.
The story involves Prince Guduza, the Speaker of the Swazi Parliament’s House of Assembly, who co-owns a company at the centre of an E17 million (about 2.5 million US Dollars) cigarette smuggling case.
The case hasn’t come to court yet, but in typical fashion the Swazi media have revealed many details of the alleged crime. In many democratic countries this would not be allowed because it could prejudice the accused person’s chance of getting a fair trial.
But since Swaziland isn’t a democracy and there is no such thing as a jury trial one might argue that no one can be prejudiced by news reports.
Anyhow, in the spirit of fairness I won’t give the details of the case here. Suffice is to say that the newspapers reported that Guduza was the co-owner of the accused company. Guduza claims that he used to be a co-owner but he gave up his share of the business after police tipped him off that they were investigating the company for illegal activity.
The question journalists must ask now is why did the police tip him off? One journalist who thinks he has the answer (and I tend to agree with his analysis) is Vusi Sibisi.
In his As I See It column in the Times of Swaziland on Wednesday (5 March 2008), Sibisi writes,
The Royal Swaziland Police in their course of duty build a prima facie criminal case against a company suspected to be importing contraband or being involved in other illicit operations. In the course of their investigations, the police find out that one of two of the directors of the company is a prince.
Instead of effecting arrests or seeking the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police go and warn the prince to pull out of the company, whose alleged contraband is confiscated almost immediately after.
That briefly is the story of Tanya Investment Company and Prince Gudza, the Speaker in Parliament’s House of Assembly.
As I see it, had Prince Gudza been any other citizen it is doubtful if the police would have warned him before making arrests.
Which raises the question of whether the police have become a political tool for the ruling class.’
This has prompted one journalist to ask whether the police ‘are a tool for the ruling class’.
The story involves Prince Guduza, the Speaker of the Swazi Parliament’s House of Assembly, who co-owns a company at the centre of an E17 million (about 2.5 million US Dollars) cigarette smuggling case.
The case hasn’t come to court yet, but in typical fashion the Swazi media have revealed many details of the alleged crime. In many democratic countries this would not be allowed because it could prejudice the accused person’s chance of getting a fair trial.
But since Swaziland isn’t a democracy and there is no such thing as a jury trial one might argue that no one can be prejudiced by news reports.
Anyhow, in the spirit of fairness I won’t give the details of the case here. Suffice is to say that the newspapers reported that Guduza was the co-owner of the accused company. Guduza claims that he used to be a co-owner but he gave up his share of the business after police tipped him off that they were investigating the company for illegal activity.
The question journalists must ask now is why did the police tip him off? One journalist who thinks he has the answer (and I tend to agree with his analysis) is Vusi Sibisi.
In his As I See It column in the Times of Swaziland on Wednesday (5 March 2008), Sibisi writes,
The Royal Swaziland Police in their course of duty build a prima facie criminal case against a company suspected to be importing contraband or being involved in other illicit operations. In the course of their investigations, the police find out that one of two of the directors of the company is a prince.
Instead of effecting arrests or seeking the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police go and warn the prince to pull out of the company, whose alleged contraband is confiscated almost immediately after.
That briefly is the story of Tanya Investment Company and Prince Gudza, the Speaker in Parliament’s House of Assembly.
As I see it, had Prince Gudza been any other citizen it is doubtful if the police would have warned him before making arrests.
Which raises the question of whether the police have become a political tool for the ruling class.’
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
An eight-months pregnant woman was deliberately beaten all over her body by a Swazi policeman in the latest example of police brutality to come out of the national textile workers’ strike.
Both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer yesterday (Thursday 6 March 2008) reported that a 23-year-old woman (whom they named) was taken to hospital for treatment after the attack.
The Times reported that the woman, who was among a group striking for higher wages, was seated when she was hit on the head by a teargas canister thrown by a policeman. She fell to the ground.
The Times quoted her saying, ‘You see when I fell to the ground, I landed on my stomach and suffocating on the teargas was even more tormenting.’
The Observer reported that she was ‘severely assaulted with batons all over the body by the uncompromising police officers’.
The Observer quoted the woman saying, ‘After choking, I could not run any further, and for an instant I was gripped with fear and panic as I lay motionless on the ground.’
The Observer said it was then ‘that a police officer beat her with a baton all over the body, leaving her half conscious and gasping for breath.’
The Observer quoted the woman saying, ‘I thought I would die, but in an instant I said a prayer, especially for my baby.’
The Times reported the woman saying, ‘I now have pains in my chest. Right now I don’t know if my unborn child was affected or not.’
The Times also reported further police brutality. A woman, aged 28, (also named by the newspaper) said she was assaulted with the butt of a gun by a police officer and she later suffocated on the teargas.
In a separate report, the Observer said that many police officers on duty during the attack, which happened in the industrial town of Matsapha, had removed their force numbers from their uniforms. This meant it was difficult for people to identify who they were.
The Observer newspaper quoted one volunteer who had been present to monitor what had been intended by strikers to be a peaceful picket of factories, ‘We wonder if the hiding of force numbers is ethical for a police officer. What I know is that each and every police officer should be identifiable and this has left us with a huge dilemma.’
This is the third day running that I have reported on police brutality in Swaziland. It had not been my intention to give the textile workers;’ strike so much attention, but the continuing police brutally in Swaziland cannot be ignored.
I have yet to see any coverage of this brutality in the international media, so I hope that these reports give readers of this blog who are from outside of Swaziland some insight into what life is like in the kingdom.
On a final note, the reporting of police brutality by both the Times and now after a poor start also the Observer is to be commended. It stands in stark contrast to the radio and television in Swaziland (most of which is government controlled) which have largely ignored the police violence over the past three days.
See also
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer yesterday (Thursday 6 March 2008) reported that a 23-year-old woman (whom they named) was taken to hospital for treatment after the attack.
The Times reported that the woman, who was among a group striking for higher wages, was seated when she was hit on the head by a teargas canister thrown by a policeman. She fell to the ground.
The Times quoted her saying, ‘You see when I fell to the ground, I landed on my stomach and suffocating on the teargas was even more tormenting.’
The Observer reported that she was ‘severely assaulted with batons all over the body by the uncompromising police officers’.
The Observer quoted the woman saying, ‘After choking, I could not run any further, and for an instant I was gripped with fear and panic as I lay motionless on the ground.’
The Observer said it was then ‘that a police officer beat her with a baton all over the body, leaving her half conscious and gasping for breath.’
The Observer quoted the woman saying, ‘I thought I would die, but in an instant I said a prayer, especially for my baby.’
The Times reported the woman saying, ‘I now have pains in my chest. Right now I don’t know if my unborn child was affected or not.’
The Times also reported further police brutality. A woman, aged 28, (also named by the newspaper) said she was assaulted with the butt of a gun by a police officer and she later suffocated on the teargas.
In a separate report, the Observer said that many police officers on duty during the attack, which happened in the industrial town of Matsapha, had removed their force numbers from their uniforms. This meant it was difficult for people to identify who they were.
The Observer newspaper quoted one volunteer who had been present to monitor what had been intended by strikers to be a peaceful picket of factories, ‘We wonder if the hiding of force numbers is ethical for a police officer. What I know is that each and every police officer should be identifiable and this has left us with a huge dilemma.’
This is the third day running that I have reported on police brutality in Swaziland. It had not been my intention to give the textile workers;’ strike so much attention, but the continuing police brutally in Swaziland cannot be ignored.
I have yet to see any coverage of this brutality in the international media, so I hope that these reports give readers of this blog who are from outside of Swaziland some insight into what life is like in the kingdom.
On a final note, the reporting of police brutality by both the Times and now after a poor start also the Observer is to be commended. It stands in stark contrast to the radio and television in Swaziland (most of which is government controlled) which have largely ignored the police violence over the past three days.
See also
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Thursday, 6 March 2008
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK STRIKERS
Police attacked textile workers engaged in a legal and peaceful strike, Swazi newspapers have reported.
Police fired teargas into a fleeing crowd and chased workers for up to four kilometres. An unknown number of workers and two policemen were injured, according to news reports.
On the second day of the national textile workers strike in Swaziland, the news media’s attention moved from the industrial town of Matsapha to the smaller area of Nhlangano.
The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (5 March 2008) that about 2,000 strikers pelted police with stones after police tried to move them from the front of factory gates so that some people who wanted to work could crawl through a hole in the factory fence.
The Times reported that a factory manager and police assaulted a trade union leader as he tried to complain.
Other strikers joined in the scuffle and teargas was fired.
The Times reported, ‘The employees were retaliating after teargas had been fired on the rampaging crowd by the police. The police action could only help intensify the protest instead of diffusing it as some made it clear they were prepared to fight to the end.’
The Times reported that police fired teargas ‘into the already fleeing crowd. This resulted in some people picking up injuries after they fell and were caught in the stampede.’
The workers then fled into a nearby forest
The Swazi Observer, which in its previous day’s reports had largely ignored the police violence, reported yesterday (5 March 2008) that ‘heavily armed’ police chased the workers into the forest.
The Observer also reported that police chased workers for about 4km into town.
A trade union leader told the Observer that workers sustained ‘severe injuries.’ Police denied this.
The Observer also reported that the trade union was trying to get a court order to restrain police from ‘interfering with their rights to picket peacefully as the strike is lawful’.
A union leader told the Observer, ‘The strike action is lawful and as such the workers have the right to picket peacefully.’
See also
SWAZILAND WORKERS ‘NEAR STARVING’
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Police fired teargas into a fleeing crowd and chased workers for up to four kilometres. An unknown number of workers and two policemen were injured, according to news reports.
On the second day of the national textile workers strike in Swaziland, the news media’s attention moved from the industrial town of Matsapha to the smaller area of Nhlangano.
The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (5 March 2008) that about 2,000 strikers pelted police with stones after police tried to move them from the front of factory gates so that some people who wanted to work could crawl through a hole in the factory fence.
The Times reported that a factory manager and police assaulted a trade union leader as he tried to complain.
Other strikers joined in the scuffle and teargas was fired.
The Times reported, ‘The employees were retaliating after teargas had been fired on the rampaging crowd by the police. The police action could only help intensify the protest instead of diffusing it as some made it clear they were prepared to fight to the end.’
The Times reported that police fired teargas ‘into the already fleeing crowd. This resulted in some people picking up injuries after they fell and were caught in the stampede.’
The workers then fled into a nearby forest
The Swazi Observer, which in its previous day’s reports had largely ignored the police violence, reported yesterday (5 March 2008) that ‘heavily armed’ police chased the workers into the forest.
The Observer also reported that police chased workers for about 4km into town.
A trade union leader told the Observer that workers sustained ‘severe injuries.’ Police denied this.
The Observer also reported that the trade union was trying to get a court order to restrain police from ‘interfering with their rights to picket peacefully as the strike is lawful’.
A union leader told the Observer, ‘The strike action is lawful and as such the workers have the right to picket peacefully.’
See also
SWAZILAND WORKERS ‘NEAR STARVING’
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
SWAZILAND WORKERS ‘NEAR STARVING’
Swaziland’s textile workers are so poorly paid that some exist close to ‘starvation’.
This is one of the claims made by the Swazi Observer newspaper.
In interviews published yesterday (Wednesday 5 March 2008) the newspaper reported that workers – presently on strike for higher pay – are so poorly paid that they cannot afford to eat properly.
The Observer reported one worker saying, ‘It is not everyday that we afford a meal. We normally share one plate among two people unless it is payday.’
The Observer itself noted, ‘The workers themselves admit that they had developed strategies to confront starvation because what they earn can hardly see them through the week.’
Textile workers in Swaziland can earn as little as E400 (about 60 US Dollars) per fortnight. They began a strike for better pay on Monday (3 March 2008).
The Observer quoted another textile worker saying, ‘A bowl of rice with tomato stew does the trick. For protein we simply add boiled eggs to our meal. A boiled egg costs about E1 and we can afford only that much.’
A plate of food on sale at factory gates in the industrial town of Matsapha costs between E5 and E8, depending on the quantity. At times two girls share the smaller plate of E5 and that sustains them until the end of the eight-hour working day, the Observer reported.
A trade union leader told the Observer, ‘For lunch sometimes the workers have slices of bread with no paste.’
The Observer also reported that textile workers rely heavily on moneylenders to get by from one payday to the next.
‘They are normally stationed at the entrances of every factory and wait with their mean faces until knockoff time, which is normally a half day.
‘The workers normally handover their pay envelopes to the [moneylenders] and borrow all over again because “life must go on”.’
See also
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK STRIKERS
This is one of the claims made by the Swazi Observer newspaper.
In interviews published yesterday (Wednesday 5 March 2008) the newspaper reported that workers – presently on strike for higher pay – are so poorly paid that they cannot afford to eat properly.
The Observer reported one worker saying, ‘It is not everyday that we afford a meal. We normally share one plate among two people unless it is payday.’
The Observer itself noted, ‘The workers themselves admit that they had developed strategies to confront starvation because what they earn can hardly see them through the week.’
Textile workers in Swaziland can earn as little as E400 (about 60 US Dollars) per fortnight. They began a strike for better pay on Monday (3 March 2008).
The Observer quoted another textile worker saying, ‘A bowl of rice with tomato stew does the trick. For protein we simply add boiled eggs to our meal. A boiled egg costs about E1 and we can afford only that much.’
A plate of food on sale at factory gates in the industrial town of Matsapha costs between E5 and E8, depending on the quantity. At times two girls share the smaller plate of E5 and that sustains them until the end of the eight-hour working day, the Observer reported.
A trade union leader told the Observer, ‘For lunch sometimes the workers have slices of bread with no paste.’
The Observer also reported that textile workers rely heavily on moneylenders to get by from one payday to the next.
‘They are normally stationed at the entrances of every factory and wait with their mean faces until knockoff time, which is normally a half day.
‘The workers normally handover their pay envelopes to the [moneylenders] and borrow all over again because “life must go on”.’
See also
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK STRIKERS
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Swazi police rampaged against factory strikers and tear-gassed and assaulted innocent women, injuring two who needed hospital treatment, according to Swaziland’s only independent news media, the Times of Swaziland.
Or according to the Swazi Observer, the newspaper owned indirectly by the Swazi Royal Family, police dispersed ‘unruly’ demonstrators who were ‘drunk’. No one was injured.
This is the story of a strike by 16,000 textile workers in Swaziland, who after going through an extremely lengthy process with the court, held a legal strike against their employers after a deadlock in pay talks. Most of the workers earn as little as E400 (about 60 US Dollars) per fortnight, according to the Times report.
The whole of Swaziland’s textile industry is reportedly affected by the strike.
The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (Tuesday 4 March 2008) that the two women were injured ‘after the police provoked a riot’ among the textile workers ‘when they deliberately fired tear gas during their march for no reason’.
The Times, which published photographs of the tear gas attack and a picture of a woman being attacked by two police officers dressed in riot gear, gave a detailed account of the police attack on textile workers.
The Times reported, ‘Some were beaten or briefly taken to the Sigodvweni Police Station for minor cases like jaywalking and these were mostly men.’
The Times report continued,
Or according to the Swazi Observer, the newspaper owned indirectly by the Swazi Royal Family, police dispersed ‘unruly’ demonstrators who were ‘drunk’. No one was injured.
This is the story of a strike by 16,000 textile workers in Swaziland, who after going through an extremely lengthy process with the court, held a legal strike against their employers after a deadlock in pay talks. Most of the workers earn as little as E400 (about 60 US Dollars) per fortnight, according to the Times report.
The whole of Swaziland’s textile industry is reportedly affected by the strike.
The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (Tuesday 4 March 2008) that the two women were injured ‘after the police provoked a riot’ among the textile workers ‘when they deliberately fired tear gas during their march for no reason’.
The Times, which published photographs of the tear gas attack and a picture of a woman being attacked by two police officers dressed in riot gear, gave a detailed account of the police attack on textile workers.
The Times reported, ‘Some were beaten or briefly taken to the Sigodvweni Police Station for minor cases like jaywalking and these were mostly men.’
The Times report continued,
‘One woman who was allegedly assaulted by the police a few minutes after the tear gas was fired, was heard complaining that she was assaulted for nothing as she was seated waiting for her friends.
‘She said the police had been patrolling every street at the industrial area [in Matsapha] yesterday, she did not think they would find her a threat but they assaulted her on the right hand with the baton.
‘When the tear gas was fired, the workers screamed and ran for dear life.’
It seems that the police attack was unplanned because the Times reports that other police who were standing nearby the tear-gassed demonstrators jumped in their vehicles and drove away at high speed, presumably to escape being gassed themselves.
The Times report continued,
‘She said the police had been patrolling every street at the industrial area [in Matsapha] yesterday, she did not think they would find her a threat but they assaulted her on the right hand with the baton.
‘When the tear gas was fired, the workers screamed and ran for dear life.’
It seems that the police attack was unplanned because the Times reports that other police who were standing nearby the tear-gassed demonstrators jumped in their vehicles and drove away at high speed, presumably to escape being gassed themselves.
The Times report continued,
‘The workers ran in all directions and tear gas was fired even after they had left the road about 200 metres away.
‘The police officers in riot gear later left the scene followed by women shouting unsavoury remarks at them. The officers proudly shouted back and warned the strikers they would be back.’
The Times noted that many of the police who attacked the textile workers were the same ones who attacked university students in January (2008).
The Swazi Observer newspaper saw none of this. As far as the Observer was concerned yesterday (Tuesday 4 March 2008) the main story of the day was the traffic disruptions that were caused by the demonstrating workers.
The Observer painted a picture of the strikers as unruly and out of control. It reported traffic police officers who had ‘a tough time controlling the supercharged demonstrators’.
The Observer report continued,
‘The police officers in riot gear later left the scene followed by women shouting unsavoury remarks at them. The officers proudly shouted back and warned the strikers they would be back.’
The Times noted that many of the police who attacked the textile workers were the same ones who attacked university students in January (2008).
The Swazi Observer newspaper saw none of this. As far as the Observer was concerned yesterday (Tuesday 4 March 2008) the main story of the day was the traffic disruptions that were caused by the demonstrating workers.
The Observer painted a picture of the strikers as unruly and out of control. It reported traffic police officers who had ‘a tough time controlling the supercharged demonstrators’.
The Observer report continued,
‘However, the mass demonstrations began to lose momentum at around 11am when police officers from the Operational Support Services Unit (OSSU) decided to disperse the demonstrators who had suddenly turned out to be unruly with teargas.
‘By then a fraction of the demonstrators were drunk as they had taken the traditional marula brew and were uttering insults and expletives at people passing by and to police officers themselves.
‘The tear gas was sprayed at a crucial moment, when some of the union leaders had just left to seek official permission to stage the demonstrations at the Matsapha town board.’
The two news reports could have come from entirely different events. The Times saw Swazi police out of control assaulting innocent women for no reason at all. The Observer saw unruly and drunk demonstrators.
(One small point struck me as curious. The Times went out of its way to say that the OSSU were not involved and yet the Observer clearly identified the OSSU as the group which tear-gassed the demonstrators.)
I wonder if really the reporters saw what they wanted to see. The Observer is a newspaper that directly supports the people who fund it (the Swazi Royal family and others close to Swaziland’s ruling elite) so it is unlikely that the Observer would support any activity that undermines the status quo in the kingdom.
At present Swaziland is an unstable kingdom. Not only does it suffer from the highest rate of HIV infection in the world it has huge problems with poverty and disadvantage.
Many groups, which have been in the past reluctant to speak out against poor conditions, are now becoming vocal. In the past year there have been attempts to create trade unions for junior members of the police force, the army and the correctional service (prison service). All of these attempts have been met with threats and intimidation from those in authority.
The textile workers are just the latest who have taken to the streets to demand their rights. Last July (2007) there was a two-day national strike to protest about working conditions and also to demand that political parties be allowed in Swaziland.
The textile workers strike is not over, with more demonstrations planned. We should all look on with interest to see what the police and their supporters in the media have planned for us next.
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
MORE ON SWAZI POLICE BRUTALITY
STRIKE (1) WHAT THE MEDIA SAY
SWAZI MEDIA AND TEXTILE INDUSTRY
‘By then a fraction of the demonstrators were drunk as they had taken the traditional marula brew and were uttering insults and expletives at people passing by and to police officers themselves.
‘The tear gas was sprayed at a crucial moment, when some of the union leaders had just left to seek official permission to stage the demonstrations at the Matsapha town board.’
The two news reports could have come from entirely different events. The Times saw Swazi police out of control assaulting innocent women for no reason at all. The Observer saw unruly and drunk demonstrators.
(One small point struck me as curious. The Times went out of its way to say that the OSSU were not involved and yet the Observer clearly identified the OSSU as the group which tear-gassed the demonstrators.)
I wonder if really the reporters saw what they wanted to see. The Observer is a newspaper that directly supports the people who fund it (the Swazi Royal family and others close to Swaziland’s ruling elite) so it is unlikely that the Observer would support any activity that undermines the status quo in the kingdom.
At present Swaziland is an unstable kingdom. Not only does it suffer from the highest rate of HIV infection in the world it has huge problems with poverty and disadvantage.
Many groups, which have been in the past reluctant to speak out against poor conditions, are now becoming vocal. In the past year there have been attempts to create trade unions for junior members of the police force, the army and the correctional service (prison service). All of these attempts have been met with threats and intimidation from those in authority.
The textile workers are just the latest who have taken to the streets to demand their rights. Last July (2007) there was a two-day national strike to protest about working conditions and also to demand that political parties be allowed in Swaziland.
The textile workers strike is not over, with more demonstrations planned. We should all look on with interest to see what the police and their supporters in the media have planned for us next.
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
MORE ON SWAZI POLICE BRUTALITY
STRIKE (1) WHAT THE MEDIA SAY
SWAZI MEDIA AND TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
DEREK COMES TO AFRICA
Who remembers weather forecaster-turned-missionary Derek Van Dam?
He’s the guy who came to Swaziland from the United States and sent back a series of reports to his television station NBC25 in Michigan.
I wrote about him in August and September 2007 when he was working with the El Shaddai orphanage.
In his reports called ‘Derek Goes to Africa’, NBC25 followed Derek and his church friends as they prepared to travel to Swaziland and then looked at the work they did when they were here.
The reports give a fascinating insight into the way Swaziland is viewed in America.
These reports are important because very little about Swaziland gets covered in the foreign media and this is even more so when you look at countries outside the continent of Africa. Because of this people know very little about the kingdom and what little they do know they learn through the media.
I was very critical of his reports because I felt they didn’t really understand the complexities of the situation in Swaziland, especially over the problem of HIV AIDS. They also suggested that Swazis couldn’t look after themselves and needed outsiders to come in and ‘save’ them.
Although I didn’t think much of the reports, I did feel that Derek himself had some kind of life changing experience.
And so this has proved to be.
Writing on his own blogsite, Derek says that he is giving up his job in Michigan and coming to Africa.
Derek is moving to Cape Town to the South African television station E.tv to be the head of its weather department on its new 24 hour news channel.
Derek serves on a board of directors for a non-profit organization in the United States called Compassionate Life Foundation that focuses on humanitarian/mission work in Swaziland. The foundation works with widows and orphans of AIDS victims.
Derek writes, ‘We provide them with medicine, shelter and places to worship (among other things). To make a long story short...I will also be working with them while in Africa and going back and forth to some hard-hit areas. It is an important step to make the personal contact needed to keep the trust between the people and the Americans.’
To read more about his experiences when he was in Swaziland and to link to the television reports he made click here.
See also
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 1
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 2
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 3
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 4
He’s the guy who came to Swaziland from the United States and sent back a series of reports to his television station NBC25 in Michigan.
I wrote about him in August and September 2007 when he was working with the El Shaddai orphanage.
In his reports called ‘Derek Goes to Africa’, NBC25 followed Derek and his church friends as they prepared to travel to Swaziland and then looked at the work they did when they were here.
The reports give a fascinating insight into the way Swaziland is viewed in America.
These reports are important because very little about Swaziland gets covered in the foreign media and this is even more so when you look at countries outside the continent of Africa. Because of this people know very little about the kingdom and what little they do know they learn through the media.
I was very critical of his reports because I felt they didn’t really understand the complexities of the situation in Swaziland, especially over the problem of HIV AIDS. They also suggested that Swazis couldn’t look after themselves and needed outsiders to come in and ‘save’ them.
Although I didn’t think much of the reports, I did feel that Derek himself had some kind of life changing experience.
And so this has proved to be.
Writing on his own blogsite, Derek says that he is giving up his job in Michigan and coming to Africa.
Derek is moving to Cape Town to the South African television station E.tv to be the head of its weather department on its new 24 hour news channel.
Derek serves on a board of directors for a non-profit organization in the United States called Compassionate Life Foundation that focuses on humanitarian/mission work in Swaziland. The foundation works with widows and orphans of AIDS victims.
Derek writes, ‘We provide them with medicine, shelter and places to worship (among other things). To make a long story short...I will also be working with them while in Africa and going back and forth to some hard-hit areas. It is an important step to make the personal contact needed to keep the trust between the people and the Americans.’
To read more about his experiences when he was in Swaziland and to link to the television reports he made click here.
See also
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 1
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 2
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 3
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 4
Monday, 3 March 2008
JOBS SHAKE-UP AT SWAZILAND RADIO
A shake-up of jobs at Swaziland’s government-controlled radio broadcaster has highlighted continuing concerns about the way the station operates.
The radio station Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) is a government department and all people who work there are civil servants.
The Swazi Observer newspaper reported on Friday (29 February 2008) that five journalists had been transferred from the station. The journalists were moved to a variety of jobs, mostly as ‘information officers’ at government departments. In some cases the moves were job promotions.
The Weekend Observer on Saturday (1 March 2008) revealed that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) took the decision about transfers without consultation with management at SBIS.
The Weekend Observer also interviewed staff at SBIS who accused the CSC of favouritism. The Weekend Observer reported, ‘the promoted employees are those that are said to be in the good books of supervisors at the station and those considered to be “bad boys” have been ignored.’
Staff morale at SBIS has been low for years. The Weekend Observer reported that in the past there was an ‘outcry’ when several journalists were sent against their will to work in remote rural areas of Swaziland.
In 2005, the Swaziland House of Parliament set up a committee to investigate the operations of the SBIS radio. In particular there were concerns about low staff morale at the radio stations and the direction the station was taking.
When the then Minister of Public Service and Information Themba Msibi tabled the report to Parliament it was rejected as inadequately researched.
According to a report in the Times of Swaziland at the time (7 November 2005) there were suspicions that SBIS management were the only ones consulted in the preparation of the report.
The minister denied there was low staff morale, but conceded ‘there may be some few individuals who are disenchanted’.
The low staff morale has been with SBIS for some time, but I don’t think morale is the worst of the station’s problems.
Government has a vice-like control on SBIS. This is seen in the way it treats its staff members, which is bad enough, but it can also been seen in what it allows – and does not allow – on air.
Apart from SBIS there is only one other radio station in Swaziland and that is the Christian radio station, Transworld Radio.
According to The African Media Barometer - Swaziland report of 2005 (AMB 2005), the Christian radio station Transworld Radio approached King Mswati III in 1974 with the request to be licensed as an operator that does not serve the local market but Africa as a whole. The King agreed and registered Transworld Radio as a mission by way of a Royal Command. In 2003, Transworld Radio (through a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the station and the Director of SBIS) gained access to the local frequencies FM 96 and FM 101 in ‘an obvious attempt to block the spill-over from South Africa’s Radio Zulu and Radio siSwati’.
So, no local radio stations in Swaziland can be considered to be independent of the ruling elites in Swaziland.
AMB 2005 also reported that information is heavily censored on radio. For example, the report stated, when a caller to a radio talk show touches on a sensitive issue, he or she is immediately taken off air. Some sectors of society such as trade unions and political formations are officially barred from appearing on SBIS.
Both SBIS and state-controlled Swazi TV ‘hardly offer balanced and fair information reflecting the full spectrum of diverse views and opinions,’ the report stated.
AMB 2005 went on, ‘On both stations, royalty and government ministers tend to dominate air time. Whilst Swazi TV occasionally features trade unions and other progressives in their news bulletins, SBIS is a no-go area for the opposition including trade unions.’
AMB 2005 found some positive aspects of SBIS, which it believed to be ‘generally diverse’.
The report stated, ‘Whilst the opposition and trade unions are banned from appearing on the airwaves, NGOs and government departments such as police are given free time almost on a daily basis. News is packaged around the King and government ministers. When the King is engaged in a public function, the news and current affairs slots tend to be heavily skewed towards him.
‘Live talk shows are allowed only when they deal with what the government perceives as “soft” or “safe” topics. Programmes considered to be too critical of the status quo have in the past been taken off air.’
The report was produced by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in 2005 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland.
When the AMB met again two years later in 2007, the panel was able to detect a slight improvement in SBIS programmes.
AMB 2007 said, ‘The last two years have seen a slight improvement at SBIS in providing balanced and fair content. The daily breakfast show, for example, presents a greater diversity of voices and airs opinions that might challenge the status quo.’
AMB 2007 also highlighted youth programmes, programmes on women’s issues and a plethora of sports programmes.
‘However, children’s programming is very scant, there are no human rights-based programmes and no programmes servicing minority religious groups.
‘In fact, recently members of the Bahai faith applied for airtime, but were reportedly denied on the basis that they do not preach the gospel. SBIS and the Ministry of Home Affairs are now negotiating their application.’
AMB 2007 reported that in terms of news content, stories are still packaged around the king and the government. Single-sourced stories are common, capturing only the views of government.
AMB 2007 reported, ‘There is a definite hierarchy that must be followed – stories about the King always lead, followed by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and then individual ministers and MPs.
‘As an example of the preference given to government stories, it was confirmed that if the choice of lead story were between the PM delivering a speech or major bush fires that wiped out hundreds of homes, the PM’s speech would always lead. MPs are allocated exclusive airtime on SBIS once a week to air their views.’
AMB 2007 also criticized a satirical show called ‘Khalamdumbadumbane’, where the presenters are frequently accused of perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes and being misogynists.
‘It was said the show does a disservice to women and to the cause of gender equality, particularly because the main presenter is the traditional prime minister and wields enormous influence,’ AMB 2007 stated.
SBIS clearly has many problems. It is difficult to see how the Civil Service Commission’s decision to arbitrarily move journalists from the station can help solve them. It is also clear that the Government has no intention of changing the way it deals with SBIS, for to do so would lessen the control it has on the station and therefore its control over what ordinary people in Swaziland can hear about, and what they cannot.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
RADIO NEWS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE
RADIO SWAZILAND ENGLISH NEWS
READ ALL ABOUT KING MSWATI III
PARLIAMENT INTIMIDATION GOES ON
BROADCASTING FOR THE PUBLIC
The radio station Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) is a government department and all people who work there are civil servants.
The Swazi Observer newspaper reported on Friday (29 February 2008) that five journalists had been transferred from the station. The journalists were moved to a variety of jobs, mostly as ‘information officers’ at government departments. In some cases the moves were job promotions.
The Weekend Observer on Saturday (1 March 2008) revealed that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) took the decision about transfers without consultation with management at SBIS.
The Weekend Observer also interviewed staff at SBIS who accused the CSC of favouritism. The Weekend Observer reported, ‘the promoted employees are those that are said to be in the good books of supervisors at the station and those considered to be “bad boys” have been ignored.’
Staff morale at SBIS has been low for years. The Weekend Observer reported that in the past there was an ‘outcry’ when several journalists were sent against their will to work in remote rural areas of Swaziland.
In 2005, the Swaziland House of Parliament set up a committee to investigate the operations of the SBIS radio. In particular there were concerns about low staff morale at the radio stations and the direction the station was taking.
When the then Minister of Public Service and Information Themba Msibi tabled the report to Parliament it was rejected as inadequately researched.
According to a report in the Times of Swaziland at the time (7 November 2005) there were suspicions that SBIS management were the only ones consulted in the preparation of the report.
The minister denied there was low staff morale, but conceded ‘there may be some few individuals who are disenchanted’.
The low staff morale has been with SBIS for some time, but I don’t think morale is the worst of the station’s problems.
Government has a vice-like control on SBIS. This is seen in the way it treats its staff members, which is bad enough, but it can also been seen in what it allows – and does not allow – on air.
Apart from SBIS there is only one other radio station in Swaziland and that is the Christian radio station, Transworld Radio.
According to The African Media Barometer - Swaziland report of 2005 (AMB 2005), the Christian radio station Transworld Radio approached King Mswati III in 1974 with the request to be licensed as an operator that does not serve the local market but Africa as a whole. The King agreed and registered Transworld Radio as a mission by way of a Royal Command. In 2003, Transworld Radio (through a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the station and the Director of SBIS) gained access to the local frequencies FM 96 and FM 101 in ‘an obvious attempt to block the spill-over from South Africa’s Radio Zulu and Radio siSwati’.
So, no local radio stations in Swaziland can be considered to be independent of the ruling elites in Swaziland.
AMB 2005 also reported that information is heavily censored on radio. For example, the report stated, when a caller to a radio talk show touches on a sensitive issue, he or she is immediately taken off air. Some sectors of society such as trade unions and political formations are officially barred from appearing on SBIS.
Both SBIS and state-controlled Swazi TV ‘hardly offer balanced and fair information reflecting the full spectrum of diverse views and opinions,’ the report stated.
AMB 2005 went on, ‘On both stations, royalty and government ministers tend to dominate air time. Whilst Swazi TV occasionally features trade unions and other progressives in their news bulletins, SBIS is a no-go area for the opposition including trade unions.’
AMB 2005 found some positive aspects of SBIS, which it believed to be ‘generally diverse’.
The report stated, ‘Whilst the opposition and trade unions are banned from appearing on the airwaves, NGOs and government departments such as police are given free time almost on a daily basis. News is packaged around the King and government ministers. When the King is engaged in a public function, the news and current affairs slots tend to be heavily skewed towards him.
‘Live talk shows are allowed only when they deal with what the government perceives as “soft” or “safe” topics. Programmes considered to be too critical of the status quo have in the past been taken off air.’
The report was produced by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in 2005 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland.
When the AMB met again two years later in 2007, the panel was able to detect a slight improvement in SBIS programmes.
AMB 2007 said, ‘The last two years have seen a slight improvement at SBIS in providing balanced and fair content. The daily breakfast show, for example, presents a greater diversity of voices and airs opinions that might challenge the status quo.’
AMB 2007 also highlighted youth programmes, programmes on women’s issues and a plethora of sports programmes.
‘However, children’s programming is very scant, there are no human rights-based programmes and no programmes servicing minority religious groups.
‘In fact, recently members of the Bahai faith applied for airtime, but were reportedly denied on the basis that they do not preach the gospel. SBIS and the Ministry of Home Affairs are now negotiating their application.’
AMB 2007 reported that in terms of news content, stories are still packaged around the king and the government. Single-sourced stories are common, capturing only the views of government.
AMB 2007 reported, ‘There is a definite hierarchy that must be followed – stories about the King always lead, followed by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and then individual ministers and MPs.
‘As an example of the preference given to government stories, it was confirmed that if the choice of lead story were between the PM delivering a speech or major bush fires that wiped out hundreds of homes, the PM’s speech would always lead. MPs are allocated exclusive airtime on SBIS once a week to air their views.’
AMB 2007 also criticized a satirical show called ‘Khalamdumbadumbane’, where the presenters are frequently accused of perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes and being misogynists.
‘It was said the show does a disservice to women and to the cause of gender equality, particularly because the main presenter is the traditional prime minister and wields enormous influence,’ AMB 2007 stated.
SBIS clearly has many problems. It is difficult to see how the Civil Service Commission’s decision to arbitrarily move journalists from the station can help solve them. It is also clear that the Government has no intention of changing the way it deals with SBIS, for to do so would lessen the control it has on the station and therefore its control over what ordinary people in Swaziland can hear about, and what they cannot.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
RADIO NEWS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE
RADIO SWAZILAND ENGLISH NEWS
READ ALL ABOUT KING MSWATI III
PARLIAMENT INTIMIDATION GOES ON
BROADCASTING FOR THE PUBLIC
Friday, 29 February 2008
SWAZI ELECTION ‘MAY NOT BE FAIR’
Swaziland’s national election, due later this year (2008) may not be free and fair, according to a report in the Times of Swaziland.
This is because an Electoral Commission which is supposed to oversee the elections has not been created.
This delay in setting up the Commission might mean that it would not have enough time to carry out its duties before the election, which is expected to be held some time in October or November. This could mean that the election would not be free or fair.
The Times reported yesterday (Thursday 28 February 2008) on a forum jointly organised by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter.
The Times reported Stephen Donaghy of SCCCO saying the Electoral Commission should have been in place last year, but this has not happened. The reason it was meant to be there in that time was because it had specific duties to carry out.
One of these duties was informing people on the process of vote casting. There was also a need to make sure enough polling stations were available for voting.
The Times reported that Donaghy ‘called upon the nation to unite and find a solution on how best the situation would be handled in light of the delay’.
I hope all the media in Swaziland heed that call. As I have written previously, after the last election in 2003 the media – especially the broadcast media – were criticised by official election observers for the poor way they informed people in Swaziland about the elections
If the media were seeking a guide on what their roles could be during the run up to the election, they could do no better than to read the official report of one of the groups of observers, the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET), which was very critical of the way the last election in 2003 was run.
The CET expressed concern over the very few people in Swaziland who actually registered to vote. In about 85 percent of the registration centres the CET visited, it saw no people at all registering.
Discussing the possible reasons for this apathy, the CET stated:
There is very little time before the election and a lot of work still needs to be done. Let the media mount an immediate campaign to ensure that everything is put in place on time to allow a free and fair election. Let’s not give Swaziland’s undemocratic ruling elite an excuse to postpone the election.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
SWAZI RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS
This is because an Electoral Commission which is supposed to oversee the elections has not been created.
This delay in setting up the Commission might mean that it would not have enough time to carry out its duties before the election, which is expected to be held some time in October or November. This could mean that the election would not be free or fair.
The Times reported yesterday (Thursday 28 February 2008) on a forum jointly organised by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter.
The Times reported Stephen Donaghy of SCCCO saying the Electoral Commission should have been in place last year, but this has not happened. The reason it was meant to be there in that time was because it had specific duties to carry out.
One of these duties was informing people on the process of vote casting. There was also a need to make sure enough polling stations were available for voting.
The Times reported that Donaghy ‘called upon the nation to unite and find a solution on how best the situation would be handled in light of the delay’.
I hope all the media in Swaziland heed that call. As I have written previously, after the last election in 2003 the media – especially the broadcast media – were criticised by official election observers for the poor way they informed people in Swaziland about the elections
If the media were seeking a guide on what their roles could be during the run up to the election, they could do no better than to read the official report of one of the groups of observers, the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET), which was very critical of the way the last election in 2003 was run.
The CET expressed concern over the very few people in Swaziland who actually registered to vote. In about 85 percent of the registration centres the CET visited, it saw no people at all registering.
Discussing the possible reasons for this apathy, the CET stated:
‘It appears to us that the lack of public participation in the registration process was symptomatic of a wider public disengagement with electoral processes.
‘For instance, civil society organisations played no role in educating and mobilising voters to register and thus exercise their franchise. The provision of education on electoral rights and responsibilities seemed to be the preserve of the election management body and the chiefs at inkhundla level.
‘Nor were domestic observers from civil society involved in monitoring the integrity of the registration process. We were of the view that key stakeholders such as civil and political organisations needed to be brought into the electoral process so that they could play an active role in educating and mobilising the public to exercise their
vote.
‘We were also of the opinion that public participation in democratic activity both at local and national level may increase if political parties, which currently have de facto existence, were given legal recognition.’
There is very little time before the election and a lot of work still needs to be done. Let the media mount an immediate campaign to ensure that everything is put in place on time to allow a free and fair election. Let’s not give Swaziland’s undemocratic ruling elite an excuse to postpone the election.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
SWAZI RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS
SWAZI ‘PRINCE’ INTERNET SCAM
A Swazi Prince’s name is at the centre of an Internet scam designed to disparage the name of Swaziland’s King Mswati III.
A letter that claims to be written by Prince Mbisi Sobhuza, son of the late King Sobhuza II, and half brother to the present king, is circulating on the Internet. In it the prince tells how he was banished from the Swazi Royal Household after he criticised King Mswati III’s habit of selecting teenage virgins as his wife (the king is reported to have 13 wives) and also criticised the ‘extravagant’ way the king spends his money.
The letter gives a detailed account of the bust up between the prince and the king that forced Prince Mbisi into exile and how he escaped into Mauritius and eventually made his way to Thailand where he is presently in hiding.
The story is elegantly told and it had me going for a moment.
Then came the scam … It’s the usual one about a business opportunity and the need for a business partner … and please send your bank details…
I enjoyed reading the letter and if that’s your kind of thing to you can access it here, but please don’t send your bank details.
A letter that claims to be written by Prince Mbisi Sobhuza, son of the late King Sobhuza II, and half brother to the present king, is circulating on the Internet. In it the prince tells how he was banished from the Swazi Royal Household after he criticised King Mswati III’s habit of selecting teenage virgins as his wife (the king is reported to have 13 wives) and also criticised the ‘extravagant’ way the king spends his money.
The letter gives a detailed account of the bust up between the prince and the king that forced Prince Mbisi into exile and how he escaped into Mauritius and eventually made his way to Thailand where he is presently in hiding.
The story is elegantly told and it had me going for a moment.
Then came the scam … It’s the usual one about a business opportunity and the need for a business partner … and please send your bank details…
I enjoyed reading the letter and if that’s your kind of thing to you can access it here, but please don’t send your bank details.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
‘OBSERVER’ BACKS SWAZI HATE GROUP
A new hate group has launched in Swaziland with the support of the Swazi Observer.
A group calling itself the Prolife Movement in Anglophone Africa (PMAA) was given a full page in the Observer yesterday (Wednesday 27 February 2008) to highlight what it says are the ‘evils’ of
- Condoms
- Sex education
- Radical feminism
- Homosexuality, and
- Abortion
The Observer allowed a spokesman purporting to be the ‘regional coordinator’ of the PMAA to spout dangerous nonsense such as ‘condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV and AIDS’ and the use of condoms ‘may lead to certain deaths’.
The Observer gave the ‘spokesman’ the opportunity to say that ‘radical feminism’ had the ‘potential to increase the rate of abortion, substance abuse, homosexuality and lead to moral decadence of society’.
At no point did the Observer require the PMAA to offer one shred of evidence to support its assertions.
Also, PMAA claimed to be already present in 82 countries around the world with the aim to be in every country by 2010.
I don’t know who this PMAA is because when I searched for it on the Internet its name didn’t appear. Not on any of the general search engines I used, nor in search engines for news articles, nor in search engines for blogsites. And all of this despite the organisation’s claim to be in 82 countries around the globe.
So who are the members of PMAA? The Observer article claimed that it has connections with the Catholic Church and the Salesians in Manzini.
By publishing this nonsense from PMAA the Observer has broken the very first article of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct, which states it is the duty of every journalist to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend, the truth.
To properly serve the public, a journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information, the code states.
The Observer has also broken Article 6 of the same code of conduct. Article 6 states that a journalist shall not originate material which encourages discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation.
It also contravenes Article 13 on ‘hate speech’, by publishing material that might promote hatred, spite and conflict.
I would like the Observer to tell its readers more about PMAA. Some of the questions its reporter could ask PMAA are: who are your leaders? Where does your finance come from? Why are you such a shadowy organisation? Why do you tell deliberate and dangerous lies about condoms and HIV AIDS?
The Observer has disgraced itself by publishing this propaganda for an extreme organisation that has one aim only and that is to spread hatred throughout Swaziland.
A group calling itself the Prolife Movement in Anglophone Africa (PMAA) was given a full page in the Observer yesterday (Wednesday 27 February 2008) to highlight what it says are the ‘evils’ of
- Condoms
- Sex education
- Radical feminism
- Homosexuality, and
- Abortion
The Observer allowed a spokesman purporting to be the ‘regional coordinator’ of the PMAA to spout dangerous nonsense such as ‘condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV and AIDS’ and the use of condoms ‘may lead to certain deaths’.
The Observer gave the ‘spokesman’ the opportunity to say that ‘radical feminism’ had the ‘potential to increase the rate of abortion, substance abuse, homosexuality and lead to moral decadence of society’.
At no point did the Observer require the PMAA to offer one shred of evidence to support its assertions.
Also, PMAA claimed to be already present in 82 countries around the world with the aim to be in every country by 2010.
I don’t know who this PMAA is because when I searched for it on the Internet its name didn’t appear. Not on any of the general search engines I used, nor in search engines for news articles, nor in search engines for blogsites. And all of this despite the organisation’s claim to be in 82 countries around the globe.
So who are the members of PMAA? The Observer article claimed that it has connections with the Catholic Church and the Salesians in Manzini.
By publishing this nonsense from PMAA the Observer has broken the very first article of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct, which states it is the duty of every journalist to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend, the truth.
To properly serve the public, a journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information, the code states.
The Observer has also broken Article 6 of the same code of conduct. Article 6 states that a journalist shall not originate material which encourages discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation.
It also contravenes Article 13 on ‘hate speech’, by publishing material that might promote hatred, spite and conflict.
I would like the Observer to tell its readers more about PMAA. Some of the questions its reporter could ask PMAA are: who are your leaders? Where does your finance come from? Why are you such a shadowy organisation? Why do you tell deliberate and dangerous lies about condoms and HIV AIDS?
The Observer has disgraced itself by publishing this propaganda for an extreme organisation that has one aim only and that is to spread hatred throughout Swaziland.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
BAD DAY FOR SWAZI PRESS FREEDOM
We are soon coming to the first anniversary of one of Swaziland’s most important press freedom rows.
About this time last year the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after it reprinted an article from the Norway-based Afrol news agency that contained criticism of Swazi King Mswati III.
To mark the anniversary Afrol published a report about the poor state of media freedom in Swaziland on Monday (25 February 2008).
As I wrote myself the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from Afrol in which the following appeared,
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
This week Afrol revealed that the Times Sunday didn’t publish the whole of its report. The newspaper left out this paragraph,
In its report this week, Afrol reminded readers that ‘the Times is known as the most independent media in Swaziland, a country where most of the press is controlled by government and where “independent” media only survive when practicing self-censorship’.
Afrol goes on to say that media analysts in Swaziland deplored the quick and total apology by the Swazi editor. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter held that the Times failed the Swazi people, claiming the last independent newspaper in the Kingdom had ‘given up the fight for media freedom. This is a great disservice to the Swazi people,’ it added.
Afrol’s report says that in its monitoring of media freedom and freedom of expression in Swaziland, MISA has during the past few years reported on attempts by the palace to curtail independent reporting by media through sheer intimidation. MISA said the ‘interactions between a Head of State and the publisher of the country’s main newspaper’ in the affair one year ago was ‘evidence of major editorial interference’.
MISA said the issues raised in the controversial article should be ‘a matter of debate for the public and economists in Swaziland,’ adding that the newspaper was ‘obliged’ to inform the public about the analysis made.
I think MISA is absolutely correct on this. One of the main roles of a free and independent media is to give people information about what is going on around them so that the people can hold their rulers to account.
As I have been writing this week, people in Swaziland aren’t being given the true picture about their economy and because of this they are unable to direct that the government undertakes new policies to save the kingdom from possible disaster.
Never has a free and courageous media been more sorely needed in Swaziland.
See also
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
UNREALITY OF SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM
About this time last year the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after it reprinted an article from the Norway-based Afrol news agency that contained criticism of Swazi King Mswati III.
To mark the anniversary Afrol published a report about the poor state of media freedom in Swaziland on Monday (25 February 2008).
As I wrote myself the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from Afrol in which the following appeared,
‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family.
The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
This week Afrol revealed that the Times Sunday didn’t publish the whole of its report. The newspaper left out this paragraph,
‘There is little confidence in Swaziland's future as long as long-awaited democratic reforms are not carried out. Investors and donors expect that a revolution may be around the corner and prefer to do their deals with the next, democratic rulers of Swaziland.’
In its report this week, Afrol reminded readers that ‘the Times is known as the most independent media in Swaziland, a country where most of the press is controlled by government and where “independent” media only survive when practicing self-censorship’.
Afrol goes on to say that media analysts in Swaziland deplored the quick and total apology by the Swazi editor. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter held that the Times failed the Swazi people, claiming the last independent newspaper in the Kingdom had ‘given up the fight for media freedom. This is a great disservice to the Swazi people,’ it added.
Afrol’s report says that in its monitoring of media freedom and freedom of expression in Swaziland, MISA has during the past few years reported on attempts by the palace to curtail independent reporting by media through sheer intimidation. MISA said the ‘interactions between a Head of State and the publisher of the country’s main newspaper’ in the affair one year ago was ‘evidence of major editorial interference’.
MISA said the issues raised in the controversial article should be ‘a matter of debate for the public and economists in Swaziland,’ adding that the newspaper was ‘obliged’ to inform the public about the analysis made.
I think MISA is absolutely correct on this. One of the main roles of a free and independent media is to give people information about what is going on around them so that the people can hold their rulers to account.
As I have been writing this week, people in Swaziland aren’t being given the true picture about their economy and because of this they are unable to direct that the government undertakes new policies to save the kingdom from possible disaster.
Never has a free and courageous media been more sorely needed in Swaziland.
See also
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
UNREALITY OF SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
SWAZI MEDIA AND THE FAILING ECONOMY
Two weeks ago I reported that the Swazi media were seriously misleading themselves and the kingdom about the state of Swaziland’s economy.
This was on the occasion of the official opening of the Swazi Parliament by King Mswati III.
The media reported that the Swazi economy was growing, but more work was needed to make it stronger.
I pointed out that in fact the Swazi economy was in danger of collapse because of its over-reliance on funds from the South Africa Customs Union (SACU).
I said that a report on Swaziland from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2007 had warned that the amount of money Swaziland was receiving through SACU made the economy of Swaziland look better than it really was.
Now, a newspaper in South Africa has warned that SACU is close to collapse because of disagreements between member states on how to conduct trade with Europe.
Business Day reported yesterday (Monday 25 February 2008) that SACU was split last year when Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland broke ranks with South Africa and signed an interim economic partnership agreement (EPA) that would govern trade with the European Union (EU).
The report from Business Day which has been picked up by media across the world said,
The row is about member states of SACU ‘breaking ranks’ and making their own deals with the EU. South Africa opted out of the EPA at the end of last year (2007), citing unfair demands by the EU. Under article 31 of the SACU Agreement, member states may not enter into new preferential trade agreements with third parties without the consent of other members, Business Day reports.
The report quotes one commentator, who declined to be named, ‘SA was initially surprised when SACU member states broke ranks, but it can now use this to break up the union. The signs are not positive.’
This manoeuvring puts Swaziland in a difficult position as it relies for about 70 percent of its annual income from receipts from SACU. It is now vital that people in Swaziland have a full, open, detailed debate about the kingdom’s economic future.
On the evidence so far we can’t expect the Swazi media to lead much of a meaningful debate.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA IGNORE ECONOMIC CRISIS
This was on the occasion of the official opening of the Swazi Parliament by King Mswati III.
The media reported that the Swazi economy was growing, but more work was needed to make it stronger.
I pointed out that in fact the Swazi economy was in danger of collapse because of its over-reliance on funds from the South Africa Customs Union (SACU).
I said that a report on Swaziland from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2007 had warned that the amount of money Swaziland was receiving through SACU made the economy of Swaziland look better than it really was.
Now, a newspaper in South Africa has warned that SACU is close to collapse because of disagreements between member states on how to conduct trade with Europe.
Business Day reported yesterday (Monday 25 February 2008) that SACU was split last year when Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland broke ranks with South Africa and signed an interim economic partnership agreement (EPA) that would govern trade with the European Union (EU).
The report from Business Day which has been picked up by media across the world said,
‘Now, angered by the other members’ decision to initial the pact, it is feared that South Africa might use their move as a reason to break up the union. This would have grave economic implications, especially for Lesotho and Swaziland, which rely heavily on revenues from the customs pool.
‘It is understood that EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson is to meet President Thabo Mbeki this week to discuss South Africa’s position on the EPA. Mbeki, in his state of the nation address this month (February 2008), singled out the EPA and regional integration as priorities this year, but observers said these commitments were not reflected on the ground.’
The row is about member states of SACU ‘breaking ranks’ and making their own deals with the EU. South Africa opted out of the EPA at the end of last year (2007), citing unfair demands by the EU. Under article 31 of the SACU Agreement, member states may not enter into new preferential trade agreements with third parties without the consent of other members, Business Day reports.
The report quotes one commentator, who declined to be named, ‘SA was initially surprised when SACU member states broke ranks, but it can now use this to break up the union. The signs are not positive.’
This manoeuvring puts Swaziland in a difficult position as it relies for about 70 percent of its annual income from receipts from SACU. It is now vital that people in Swaziland have a full, open, detailed debate about the kingdom’s economic future.
On the evidence so far we can’t expect the Swazi media to lead much of a meaningful debate.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA IGNORE ECONOMIC CRISIS
Monday, 25 February 2008
SWAZI MEDIA AND TEXTILE INDUSTRY
A series of reports over the past week about a dispute in one of Swaziland’s textile factories has highlighted the poor working conditions in the industry.
It has also exposed major shortcomings in the Swazi media and the way they are unable (or unwilling) to explain to people in Swaziland what is going on around them.
The reports concern a company called Procan, which operates in the industrial town of Matsapha. According to the Swazi Observer (19 February and 20 February 2008), the company sacked all of its more than 600 workers after they went on strike to protest against not being paid their wages on time and not being paid for leave.
Procan then arranged for new people to be engaged to take on the jobs of the sacked workers.
As a result of all this, Swaziland’s Minister of Employment met with management, the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Worker’s Union, and the Swaziland Investment Promotion Agency, to try to solve the dispute. At the time of writing discussions were still going on.
The Swazi Observer in particular devoted pages to the dispute, but readers would come away believing that the Procan dispute was an isolated incident. In fact, the textile industry in Swaziland is hugely controversial for a number of reasons: there are worries about how much the Swazi taxpayer is subsidising the textile industry, as well as concerns that the companies pay very little back into the Swazi economy whilst exploiting their workers.
None of this is new. Newspapers such as the Swazi Observer have reported these things in the past, but, as with this week’s latest round of reports, the Swazi media rarely connect the reports together to give Swazi people a full picture of what is going on.
This lack of endeavour on the part of the Swazi media shows them in a very poor light. For someone looking in on the Swazi media, it is difficult to tell whether this is because the journalists are incapable of seeing what is going on around them or whether they are deliberately withholding information from the public.
One must suspect that they are deliberately withholding information, because the appalling state of the Swaziland textile industry is well documented outside of the kingdom.
Only as recently as August 2007, a major damning report on Swaziland’s textile industry called Footloose Investors, Investing in the Garment Industry in Africa, was published by SOMO – Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The report states, in July 2007 there were around 17 or 18 garment companies in Swaziland (down from more than 30), all of these are foreign owned companies and 11 are thought to be Taiwanese owned. Generally, Swazis are not employed in management positions in these companies and there is little or no opportunity for local people to progress beyond the lowest ranks of employment.
The garment industry took off in Swaziland in 2001 when world trade agreements made it attractive for foreign-based companies to set up in the kingdom. At its height the textile industry had about 30 companies working in Swaziland which employed about 30,000 workers – mostly in the industrial town of Matsapha. There is very little work in the textile industry available in rural areas.
In 2007, the textile industry employed about 16,000 workers – a fall of 50 percent since 2004.
The reasons for the rise and fall of the textile industry in such a short space of time can be attributed in large part to world economy. The SOMO report states that the government policy of providing ‘factory shells’ for incoming companies at little or no cost to the company showed that Swaziland was desperate to attract investment.
As a result the Government gave companies a large number of incentives such as tax exemptions and duty free importation of raw materials. The Government also allowed companies to take all profits and dividends outside of Swaziland, which in effect meant that there was little or no investment within Swaziland from the companies.
With a change of world trading conditions, Swaziland became less attractive to foreign companies. In order to maintain profits the companies began to lobby the Government for changes in the law. The companies especially wanted laws and regulations regarding labour loosened.
SOMO concludes, ‘It seems that the public spending on building shells and infrastructure aimed at attracting foreign investment in the garment industry has not brought about much economic benefit so far.’
The report states,
Some companies simply shut down and moved on, leaving workers in the lurch.
The SOMO report gives two examples,
This led SOMO to conclude, ‘The companies that are departing from Swaziland are not leaving anything behind. Most of the companies can leave without the government being able to take any action. They take everything with them on departure; they do not pay their workers, they take everything that has been built into the factory, they even take the keys.’
SOMO also reports that employers in the textile industry complained about high labour costs, ‘that the workers do not work hard enough and absenteeism is high’.
The textile industry is notorious for exploiting its workers. Wages are low with the minimum wage about E200 (28 US dollars) per week, with an average income of between E800-1,000 per month (in 2006). Overtime is compulsory when the orders are high. Most workers work overtime because they desperately need the money.
The report states, ‘Trade unions have researched the income needed for a family, concluding that 2,000 emalangeni per month is an absolute minimum. Workers interviewed in 2006 said that they would need about 3,000 emalangei to support an adequate standard of living. On average, a garment worker supports a family of five to ten people.’
The Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU) was reported saying that workers in the textile industry are more afraid now. ‘They are scared of losing their jobs, and are unwilling to organise as they fear that every factory that organises will close. Indeed, some of the factories that were on the verge of a recognition agreement with the trade union, closed down in 2005 and 2006.’
When companies closed the workers who were made redundant often found themselves in very difficult situations, SOMO reports.
‘They were forced out of their homes, and often had to work in the informal economy, with very little income.’
In its conclusion to the report SOMO quoted the Swaziland Investment Promotion Agency (SIPA) saying that the garment industry could not be successful in Swaziland as the raw materials needed had to be imported from Asia which doubled the time it took to make garments.
A representative of the European Commission in Swaziland is quoted saying that there is clear dissatisfaction with the return on all the investments. It has cost Swaziland a great deal of money and effort to attract the industry to Swaziland, and it will cost the country even more to retain it.
So there you have it. The textile industry in Swaziland is a huge drain on the kingdom’s economy. It provides next to no income for Swaziland. Profits and dividends are sent abroad so do not benefit the local economy. Swazi workers are exploited and paid low wages with few benefits.
These are important things for the people of Swaziland to know.
The Swaziland media must explain to us all why it is that we have to read a report published in Europe to find this out. What has the Swazi media been doing all this time?
It has also exposed major shortcomings in the Swazi media and the way they are unable (or unwilling) to explain to people in Swaziland what is going on around them.
The reports concern a company called Procan, which operates in the industrial town of Matsapha. According to the Swazi Observer (19 February and 20 February 2008), the company sacked all of its more than 600 workers after they went on strike to protest against not being paid their wages on time and not being paid for leave.
Procan then arranged for new people to be engaged to take on the jobs of the sacked workers.
As a result of all this, Swaziland’s Minister of Employment met with management, the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Worker’s Union, and the Swaziland Investment Promotion Agency, to try to solve the dispute. At the time of writing discussions were still going on.
The Swazi Observer in particular devoted pages to the dispute, but readers would come away believing that the Procan dispute was an isolated incident. In fact, the textile industry in Swaziland is hugely controversial for a number of reasons: there are worries about how much the Swazi taxpayer is subsidising the textile industry, as well as concerns that the companies pay very little back into the Swazi economy whilst exploiting their workers.
None of this is new. Newspapers such as the Swazi Observer have reported these things in the past, but, as with this week’s latest round of reports, the Swazi media rarely connect the reports together to give Swazi people a full picture of what is going on.
This lack of endeavour on the part of the Swazi media shows them in a very poor light. For someone looking in on the Swazi media, it is difficult to tell whether this is because the journalists are incapable of seeing what is going on around them or whether they are deliberately withholding information from the public.
One must suspect that they are deliberately withholding information, because the appalling state of the Swaziland textile industry is well documented outside of the kingdom.
Only as recently as August 2007, a major damning report on Swaziland’s textile industry called Footloose Investors, Investing in the Garment Industry in Africa, was published by SOMO – Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The report states, in July 2007 there were around 17 or 18 garment companies in Swaziland (down from more than 30), all of these are foreign owned companies and 11 are thought to be Taiwanese owned. Generally, Swazis are not employed in management positions in these companies and there is little or no opportunity for local people to progress beyond the lowest ranks of employment.
The garment industry took off in Swaziland in 2001 when world trade agreements made it attractive for foreign-based companies to set up in the kingdom. At its height the textile industry had about 30 companies working in Swaziland which employed about 30,000 workers – mostly in the industrial town of Matsapha. There is very little work in the textile industry available in rural areas.
In 2007, the textile industry employed about 16,000 workers – a fall of 50 percent since 2004.
The reasons for the rise and fall of the textile industry in such a short space of time can be attributed in large part to world economy. The SOMO report states that the government policy of providing ‘factory shells’ for incoming companies at little or no cost to the company showed that Swaziland was desperate to attract investment.
As a result the Government gave companies a large number of incentives such as tax exemptions and duty free importation of raw materials. The Government also allowed companies to take all profits and dividends outside of Swaziland, which in effect meant that there was little or no investment within Swaziland from the companies.
With a change of world trading conditions, Swaziland became less attractive to foreign companies. In order to maintain profits the companies began to lobby the Government for changes in the law. The companies especially wanted laws and regulations regarding labour loosened.
SOMO concludes, ‘It seems that the public spending on building shells and infrastructure aimed at attracting foreign investment in the garment industry has not brought about much economic benefit so far.’
The report states,
‘Companies have been asking for certain “incentives” in exchange for their continued production in the country, implying that the country owes them something for their presence.
‘One of the companies in Swaziland, for example, Tex Ray, announced tits willingness to set up a textile mill but asked in return for less stringent labour laws and laws on the environment, and for the prices of electricity and water to be halved. They also felt that government should subsidise the wages.’
Some companies simply shut down and moved on, leaving workers in the lurch.
The SOMO report gives two examples,
‘Sheung Lee was a company that suddenly closed down from one day to the next, and the 400 workers employed there were not paid their terminal benefits. The owner fled the country and, according to the Taiwanese embassy, has disappeared without a trace.
‘Workers at Suntay Lon were not paid for a fortnight, and were told to come back another day to get their payment. They were never paid and the management left, stripping the factory and leaving the supervisors from China behind, without money or plane tickets. The Taiwanese embassy arranged for their employment agency to get them tickets, and gave them money for food.’
This led SOMO to conclude, ‘The companies that are departing from Swaziland are not leaving anything behind. Most of the companies can leave without the government being able to take any action. They take everything with them on departure; they do not pay their workers, they take everything that has been built into the factory, they even take the keys.’
SOMO also reports that employers in the textile industry complained about high labour costs, ‘that the workers do not work hard enough and absenteeism is high’.
The textile industry is notorious for exploiting its workers. Wages are low with the minimum wage about E200 (28 US dollars) per week, with an average income of between E800-1,000 per month (in 2006). Overtime is compulsory when the orders are high. Most workers work overtime because they desperately need the money.
The report states, ‘Trade unions have researched the income needed for a family, concluding that 2,000 emalangeni per month is an absolute minimum. Workers interviewed in 2006 said that they would need about 3,000 emalangei to support an adequate standard of living. On average, a garment worker supports a family of five to ten people.’
The Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU) was reported saying that workers in the textile industry are more afraid now. ‘They are scared of losing their jobs, and are unwilling to organise as they fear that every factory that organises will close. Indeed, some of the factories that were on the verge of a recognition agreement with the trade union, closed down in 2005 and 2006.’
When companies closed the workers who were made redundant often found themselves in very difficult situations, SOMO reports.
‘They were forced out of their homes, and often had to work in the informal economy, with very little income.’
In its conclusion to the report SOMO quoted the Swaziland Investment Promotion Agency (SIPA) saying that the garment industry could not be successful in Swaziland as the raw materials needed had to be imported from Asia which doubled the time it took to make garments.
A representative of the European Commission in Swaziland is quoted saying that there is clear dissatisfaction with the return on all the investments. It has cost Swaziland a great deal of money and effort to attract the industry to Swaziland, and it will cost the country even more to retain it.
So there you have it. The textile industry in Swaziland is a huge drain on the kingdom’s economy. It provides next to no income for Swaziland. Profits and dividends are sent abroad so do not benefit the local economy. Swazi workers are exploited and paid low wages with few benefits.
These are important things for the people of Swaziland to know.
The Swaziland media must explain to us all why it is that we have to read a report published in Europe to find this out. What has the Swazi media been doing all this time?
Friday, 22 February 2008
HISTORY OF SWAZI LANGUAGE PRESS
I wrote on Wednesday (20 February 2008) about how Swaziland’s only newspaper in the siSwati language Tikhatsi TeMaswati, had closed down, mainly because the company that owns it wasn’t able to make it pay.
I have been reminded that Tikhatsi, was not the only newspaper in the indigenous language that has been published in Swaziland.
Fanyana Mabuza, writing in the Weekend Observer (11 November 2006) at the time of Tikhatsi’s closure, gave a brief history of the vernacular press in Swaziland. Here is an extract from his essay.
‘We had a government publication, Umbiki, (The Reporter) established in the early 1970s and housed within the Swaziland Broadcasting Service. As a siSwati paper, it did not attract a large readership in the urban areas, but was well received in the rural areas and within the semi literate in the towns. It was let down by the poor distribution strategies employed, as it was easily available in the urban areas, where it was needed the least, but never making forays into the rural backwaters, where it would be more appreciated.
‘Another challenge was that even the crop of journalists at that time preferred to write in English, as it was the “hip thing to do” giving translators a major challenge in sustaining the drama in the copy, as it was not their original scripts.
‘Had the reporters wrote in siSwati, it would have made more impact even to the urbanised readership, as they would have been able to maintain the drama and emotion within their text. Umbiki folded down within that decade, despite the fact that the taxpayer, you and me, financed it.
‘Another siSwati title emerged in the mid-1980s, under the leadership of late flamboyant politician, Sishayi Nxumalo. It was called Umgijimi (The Runner) and boasted a number of local established scribes who had had it up to here with the shenanigans of the country's print media owners, or were just seeking new challenges. Again this title could not stake its claim in the market, as no meaningful advertisers thought would make mileage in a vernacular publication, Typical stereotyped thinking at play!
‘Umgijimi also went the Umbiki route sooner, leaving the recently suspended Tikhatsi TeMaswati as the lone vernacular press in the country.
‘The Swazi Observer group of Newspapers also tried to kick-start its own siSwati version of the English title. Named Intsatseli, (The Reporter) it did not thrive for long, while non-viability excuses were peddled.
‘Indeed a publication cannot sustain itself without the support of advertising; hence the Intsatseli also went under.’
Mabuza went on to say that to encourage communication in local languages in Africa, the first step is to promote vigorously, these languages through educational policy.
African governments should be more serious about the enhancement of our cultural heritage, of which language is the most single important factor.
The Swazi government should have held on tightly onto Umbiki, he writes, and today it could have made major strides to self-sustenance and information dissemination.
To break such a stalemate, the public and the private sectors, including media operators, should come together to organise seminars and workshops where there can be cross fertilisation of ideas on how to improve the lot of media, using African language.
In the meantime, Mabuza wrote, with Tikhatsi suspended, the fringe readers have lost their only source of written mainstream information. This then means that journalism in the country does not embrace all citizens, and this defeats the purpose of the trade, which seeks to inform, educate and entertain everyone regardless of academic achievement.
See also
CELEBRATING THE SWAZI LANGUAGE
I have been reminded that Tikhatsi, was not the only newspaper in the indigenous language that has been published in Swaziland.
Fanyana Mabuza, writing in the Weekend Observer (11 November 2006) at the time of Tikhatsi’s closure, gave a brief history of the vernacular press in Swaziland. Here is an extract from his essay.
‘We had a government publication, Umbiki, (The Reporter) established in the early 1970s and housed within the Swaziland Broadcasting Service. As a siSwati paper, it did not attract a large readership in the urban areas, but was well received in the rural areas and within the semi literate in the towns. It was let down by the poor distribution strategies employed, as it was easily available in the urban areas, where it was needed the least, but never making forays into the rural backwaters, where it would be more appreciated.
‘Another challenge was that even the crop of journalists at that time preferred to write in English, as it was the “hip thing to do” giving translators a major challenge in sustaining the drama in the copy, as it was not their original scripts.
‘Had the reporters wrote in siSwati, it would have made more impact even to the urbanised readership, as they would have been able to maintain the drama and emotion within their text. Umbiki folded down within that decade, despite the fact that the taxpayer, you and me, financed it.
‘Another siSwati title emerged in the mid-1980s, under the leadership of late flamboyant politician, Sishayi Nxumalo. It was called Umgijimi (The Runner) and boasted a number of local established scribes who had had it up to here with the shenanigans of the country's print media owners, or were just seeking new challenges. Again this title could not stake its claim in the market, as no meaningful advertisers thought would make mileage in a vernacular publication, Typical stereotyped thinking at play!
‘Umgijimi also went the Umbiki route sooner, leaving the recently suspended Tikhatsi TeMaswati as the lone vernacular press in the country.
‘The Swazi Observer group of Newspapers also tried to kick-start its own siSwati version of the English title. Named Intsatseli, (The Reporter) it did not thrive for long, while non-viability excuses were peddled.
‘Indeed a publication cannot sustain itself without the support of advertising; hence the Intsatseli also went under.’
Mabuza went on to say that to encourage communication in local languages in Africa, the first step is to promote vigorously, these languages through educational policy.
African governments should be more serious about the enhancement of our cultural heritage, of which language is the most single important factor.
The Swazi government should have held on tightly onto Umbiki, he writes, and today it could have made major strides to self-sustenance and information dissemination.
To break such a stalemate, the public and the private sectors, including media operators, should come together to organise seminars and workshops where there can be cross fertilisation of ideas on how to improve the lot of media, using African language.
In the meantime, Mabuza wrote, with Tikhatsi suspended, the fringe readers have lost their only source of written mainstream information. This then means that journalism in the country does not embrace all citizens, and this defeats the purpose of the trade, which seeks to inform, educate and entertain everyone regardless of academic achievement.
See also
CELEBRATING THE SWAZI LANGUAGE
Thursday, 21 February 2008
SWAZILAND RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS
An Archbishop in Swaziland has criticised the way members of parliament (MPs) use the radio to ‘chat’ to their constituents, rather than going to see them and talk face to face.
He also said that the MPs talk about ‘non issues’ such as mourning the dead rather than about matters that affect the people who elected them.
The comments from Archbishop Jameson Mncina, head of the Efiliphi Church in Zion, were published in the Swazi Observer newspaper yesterday (Wednesday 20 February 2008).
The Observer reported the Archbishop saying that MPs rely on the national radio to ‘chat’ with their constituencies. He was referring to a series of programmes that recently started on the state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting Information Service (SBIS) radio. Each MP is being given the chance to go on radio at 6.15 in the morning to talk about matters that interest them.
The Observer reported the Archbishop saying, ‘Instead of going to the people at the grass-roots level where they were elected, they now create a barrier by talking to the people over the radio. They no longer have contact with the people. How many people listen to the 6.15 morning programme?’
The Archbishop was further reported saying that after MPs were elected they were expected to return to the people and organise meetings with them rather than talk to them ‘through gadgets of mass communication’.
The Archbishop went on to criticise MPs for talking about ‘non issues’ such as food aid distribution and, he was reported saying, they mourn dead members of society ‘and they give a colourful picture of the effects of destitution’.
The Archbishop has a point if MPs are deliberately avoiding their constituents by going on the radio. A conscientious MP would both appear on radio and visit the grass roots.
But radio should not be ignored by MPs. Radio is a very important medium in a developing country such as Swaziland. Radio is by far the best way of getting messages out to the largest number of people in the kingdom.
Figures contained in the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, published recently by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter report estimate that SBIS, which has two channels, can reach about 95 percent of the population (of about one million people).
Radio is broadcast in the local language siSwati, as well as in English. This means that just about everyone in the kingdom can understand what is being broadcast. Unlike when reading newspapers, the listener does not have to be literate to understand what is being said on the radio.
The programme that includes MPs is a new programme and it is no coincidence that it has been started in the run up to Swaziland’s national elections which are due to take place later this year (2008). Sceptics might say that this is giving sitting MPs the chance to remind their constituents who they are so that they will vote for them again when the elections come.
SBIS should be congratulated for thinking about how it can give good coverage to the election. After the last election in 2003, SBIS received mixed responses over its coverage.
As I wrote before in a report on the way the election was conducted the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) praised SBIS for allowing all candidates to canvass in the airwaves for about five minutes.
However, the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) in a report found broadcasting coverage of the election in Swaziland ‘disappointing’.
SBIS carried short items by the candidates early in the morning, but there was little news about the election and in the week up to the poll and the CET said it heard no discussion programmes or any other substantial coverage.
The CET also criticised radio coverage on the election day itself, because the fact that it was election day was not even mentioned on the early morning news.
The date of the election day in 2008 has yet to be announced, but it is widely expected to be in October or November. This gives SBIS time to organise coverage and to make sure that people in Swaziland get a proper chance to be educated about the election itself and also to hear from candidates and others about the main issues that people should be considering when choosing an MP.
To be truly useful to people in Swaziland at the time of the election, SBIS must provide air time to all candidates and allow them to be questioned by listeners. Radio phone-in shows could be a good way of doing this. SBIS must also choose a number of topics that are important to ordinary people in the kingdom and produce programmes around them. For example, programmes about health, education, water roads as well as the ever-present topic of corruption could be broadcast.
These programmes should allow people of all opinions (not just the ruling elite) to debate the topics and SBIS should not be afraid to allow dissenting voices (and not just the traditionalists) to be heard.
SBIS has a golden opportunity to prove to people in Swaziland - as well as to the listening world outside - that it is capable of behaving in the same way as radio stations in democratic countries.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
He also said that the MPs talk about ‘non issues’ such as mourning the dead rather than about matters that affect the people who elected them.
The comments from Archbishop Jameson Mncina, head of the Efiliphi Church in Zion, were published in the Swazi Observer newspaper yesterday (Wednesday 20 February 2008).
The Observer reported the Archbishop saying that MPs rely on the national radio to ‘chat’ with their constituencies. He was referring to a series of programmes that recently started on the state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting Information Service (SBIS) radio. Each MP is being given the chance to go on radio at 6.15 in the morning to talk about matters that interest them.
The Observer reported the Archbishop saying, ‘Instead of going to the people at the grass-roots level where they were elected, they now create a barrier by talking to the people over the radio. They no longer have contact with the people. How many people listen to the 6.15 morning programme?’
The Archbishop was further reported saying that after MPs were elected they were expected to return to the people and organise meetings with them rather than talk to them ‘through gadgets of mass communication’.
The Archbishop went on to criticise MPs for talking about ‘non issues’ such as food aid distribution and, he was reported saying, they mourn dead members of society ‘and they give a colourful picture of the effects of destitution’.
The Archbishop has a point if MPs are deliberately avoiding their constituents by going on the radio. A conscientious MP would both appear on radio and visit the grass roots.
But radio should not be ignored by MPs. Radio is a very important medium in a developing country such as Swaziland. Radio is by far the best way of getting messages out to the largest number of people in the kingdom.
Figures contained in the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, published recently by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter report estimate that SBIS, which has two channels, can reach about 95 percent of the population (of about one million people).
Radio is broadcast in the local language siSwati, as well as in English. This means that just about everyone in the kingdom can understand what is being broadcast. Unlike when reading newspapers, the listener does not have to be literate to understand what is being said on the radio.
The programme that includes MPs is a new programme and it is no coincidence that it has been started in the run up to Swaziland’s national elections which are due to take place later this year (2008). Sceptics might say that this is giving sitting MPs the chance to remind their constituents who they are so that they will vote for them again when the elections come.
SBIS should be congratulated for thinking about how it can give good coverage to the election. After the last election in 2003, SBIS received mixed responses over its coverage.
As I wrote before in a report on the way the election was conducted the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) praised SBIS for allowing all candidates to canvass in the airwaves for about five minutes.
However, the Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) in a report found broadcasting coverage of the election in Swaziland ‘disappointing’.
SBIS carried short items by the candidates early in the morning, but there was little news about the election and in the week up to the poll and the CET said it heard no discussion programmes or any other substantial coverage.
The CET also criticised radio coverage on the election day itself, because the fact that it was election day was not even mentioned on the early morning news.
The date of the election day in 2008 has yet to be announced, but it is widely expected to be in October or November. This gives SBIS time to organise coverage and to make sure that people in Swaziland get a proper chance to be educated about the election itself and also to hear from candidates and others about the main issues that people should be considering when choosing an MP.
To be truly useful to people in Swaziland at the time of the election, SBIS must provide air time to all candidates and allow them to be questioned by listeners. Radio phone-in shows could be a good way of doing this. SBIS must also choose a number of topics that are important to ordinary people in the kingdom and produce programmes around them. For example, programmes about health, education, water roads as well as the ever-present topic of corruption could be broadcast.
These programmes should allow people of all opinions (not just the ruling elite) to debate the topics and SBIS should not be afraid to allow dissenting voices (and not just the traditionalists) to be heard.
SBIS has a golden opportunity to prove to people in Swaziland - as well as to the listening world outside - that it is capable of behaving in the same way as radio stations in democratic countries.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
MORE ON SWAZI WOMEN AND AIDS
In case you didn’t spot it Arnau van Wyngaard of the Swaziland Reformed Church, left a comment on my post yesterday (Tuesday 19 February 2008) ‘Swazi Women and AIDS Discussion’.
This is what he wrote:
As you would have followed, we are, excepting normal church services, primarily involved in the caring for people with HIV and AIDS. This morning we started our seventh project at Nsalitje. Looking at the people who turned up (24 women and 1 man) I was once again brought under the impression of how important it is for women to be respected if we want to see a change in the AIDS rate in the country. By the way, someone else also picked up this story of the girl and wrote an excellent piece on it - fit to be published, I thought. Have a look at it by clicking here
See also
SWAZI WOMEN AND AIDS DISCUSSION
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
This is what he wrote:
As you would have followed, we are, excepting normal church services, primarily involved in the caring for people with HIV and AIDS. This morning we started our seventh project at Nsalitje. Looking at the people who turned up (24 women and 1 man) I was once again brought under the impression of how important it is for women to be respected if we want to see a change in the AIDS rate in the country. By the way, someone else also picked up this story of the girl and wrote an excellent piece on it - fit to be published, I thought. Have a look at it by clicking here
See also
SWAZI WOMEN AND AIDS DISCUSSION
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
CELEBRATING THE SWAZI LANGUAGE
This week is siSwati Week in Swaziland – an opportunity to celebrate Swaziland’s indigenous language.
The Times of Swaziland on Monday (18 February 2008) told readers it ‘joins the nation in celebrating our mother tongue’.
To show its commitment to the siSwati language, throughout the week it intends to publish some of the winning entries in a national schools siSwati writing competition.
Well, thanks very much Times of Swaziland, but it is being a little bit dishonest when it says how much it wants to celebrate the siSwati language. In November 2006 it closed down indefinitely the only newspaper in Swaziland in the siSwati language. It did this because the newspaper, called Tikhatsi TeMaswati, wasn’t making the African Echo, the company that owns the Times, any money.
Ever since its closure, people living in the rural areas of Swaziland (and that’s about 75 percent of the kingdom’s population of nearly one million people) have been asking for its return.
According to the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 report, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter, Tikhatsi TeMaswati was a translation of articles already published in English in the Times. Had it carried original reports in siSwati it might have done better, the report stated.
It goes on to say that its main obstacle was attracting advertisers who assume people reading siSwati are poor and are, therefore, not worth advertising to.
That’s true. To make money a newspaper has to be attractive to advertisers. Just about every newspaper in the free world gets more of its income from selling advertising space than from the price people pay to buy it.
In Swaziland, about 70 percent of the population have an income of less than one US dollar a day (E7) and most of these people live in the rural areas. They have no money to spend so it follows that advertisers are not interested in them. If advertisers aren’t interested then a newspaper company is not going to make money by supplying poor people with a newspaper.
That’s how it works in Swaziland. The only newspapers published in the kingdom are in the English language and they circulate mostly in urban areas, which is where people with money live. Very few people in the kingdom are what you could call rich, but there are enough people with some money to attract advertisers.
Commercial companies whose only real interests are in making profits will not produce loss-making newspapers, even if there is a demand for them from poor people.
So, the Times can congratulate itself all it wants about supporting the siSwati language, but if it is genuine in this support it will open up Tikhatsi TeMaswati again.
The Times of Swaziland on Monday (18 February 2008) told readers it ‘joins the nation in celebrating our mother tongue’.
To show its commitment to the siSwati language, throughout the week it intends to publish some of the winning entries in a national schools siSwati writing competition.
Well, thanks very much Times of Swaziland, but it is being a little bit dishonest when it says how much it wants to celebrate the siSwati language. In November 2006 it closed down indefinitely the only newspaper in Swaziland in the siSwati language. It did this because the newspaper, called Tikhatsi TeMaswati, wasn’t making the African Echo, the company that owns the Times, any money.
Ever since its closure, people living in the rural areas of Swaziland (and that’s about 75 percent of the kingdom’s population of nearly one million people) have been asking for its return.
According to the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 report, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter, Tikhatsi TeMaswati was a translation of articles already published in English in the Times. Had it carried original reports in siSwati it might have done better, the report stated.
It goes on to say that its main obstacle was attracting advertisers who assume people reading siSwati are poor and are, therefore, not worth advertising to.
That’s true. To make money a newspaper has to be attractive to advertisers. Just about every newspaper in the free world gets more of its income from selling advertising space than from the price people pay to buy it.
In Swaziland, about 70 percent of the population have an income of less than one US dollar a day (E7) and most of these people live in the rural areas. They have no money to spend so it follows that advertisers are not interested in them. If advertisers aren’t interested then a newspaper company is not going to make money by supplying poor people with a newspaper.
That’s how it works in Swaziland. The only newspapers published in the kingdom are in the English language and they circulate mostly in urban areas, which is where people with money live. Very few people in the kingdom are what you could call rich, but there are enough people with some money to attract advertisers.
Commercial companies whose only real interests are in making profits will not produce loss-making newspapers, even if there is a demand for them from poor people.
So, the Times can congratulate itself all it wants about supporting the siSwati language, but if it is genuine in this support it will open up Tikhatsi TeMaswati again.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
SWAZI TV ON THE RACK
Swazi TV seems to be going through a bit of a bad patch at the moment.
The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (Monday 18 February 2008) that the Auditor General has launched ‘intensive investigations’ into the financial accounts of the state-controlled television station.
To add to this the entire board of directors of Swazi TV were summoned before the Minister of Public Service and Information S’gayoyo Magongo yesterday to explain the current problems at the station.
Last week it was revealed that an auditor’s letter had exposed what could turn out to be financial malpractice at Swazi TV.
The Times of Swaziland reported on Friday (15 February 2008) that Magongo also wanted an explanation on accusations made at a media conference by the Swazi TV chief executive Vukani Maziya that political interference was killing the station.
Meanwhile, the Times reports that the office of the Auditor General has eight weeks to complete an investigation of Swazi TV and report to a select committee of the Swazi Parliament.
The Auditor General’s investigation was launched before the most recent allegation about funds was made. According to the Times, Parliament last November (2007) tasked the committee to investigate allegations of mismanagement and maladministration.
Meanwhile, Swazi TV has come in for criticism for the type of programmes it broadcasts.
Also in the Times on Friday, the newspaper’s television critic reported that Education Minister Themba Msibi had given Swazi TV ‘a nudge on the shoulder’ to get the station to broadcast ‘educational shows’.
The Times reported Msibi, who was speaking at a school function, saying that the Swazi public wanted more local content on the screens. There was a need, the Times reported the minister saying, for TV programmes that empower the Swazi, such as how to draw up a business plan.
This type of criticism of Swazi TV programming is not new.
The recently published African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007 report had a lot to say about Swazi TV. It found, ‘There is much less diversity of programming on Swazi TV than on radio. The programme guide is still dominated by foreign content – news (CNN and Deutsche Welle), movies and soap operas. There has been a slight increase in local content in the last two years, but the lack of programme diversity is still severe enough to drive many (those who can afford it) to watch South African television.’
There has been a slight increase in domestic production in the last two years. New programmes include a show on siSwati praise names, an interview programme and programmes promoting local musicians. But resources are scarce, so the quality of production is poor.
There are also concerns that Swazi TV does not get enough funding for it to run adequately. At Swazi TV ‘resources are scarce, quality of programmes is poor and there is very little local content. Swazi TV relies mostly on government subsidies, but supplements its income with license fees and advertising.’
The AMB report was produced by the media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Eight panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in July 2007 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland.
The AMB report said that Swazi TV can be viewed by people in about three quarters of the kingdom, but it is not considered to be popular among viewers. The report said that people who do watch it do so because they ‘don’t have a choice’.
Swazi TV is controlled by the government and the station’s editorial independence when it comes to news and current affairs is not guaranteed in law, ‘though in practice there is some effort to resist political influence’.
The report states,
‘Journalists at both broadcasters [state-controlled SBIS radio and Swazi TV] are demonstrating more freedom in editorial decision-making and taking more risks by including progressive voices and running stories critical of government. For example, during the recent strike (July 2007), trade unionists were given considerable airtime on both SBIS and Swazi TV to air their grievances.
‘In part, this new editorial license has been put down to the protections brought in by the Constitution. But mostly it is thought to be motivated by a staff rebellion against management (particularly in the case of SBIS). In other words, it is not so much fuelled by a desire to fight for media freedom, but rather driven by internal politics and personality issues.
‘Despite efforts to exercise greater editorial independence, journalists still work under considerable constraints. For instance, the crippling border blockades instigated by a group lobbying for political reform (April 2007) were not given any coverage on SBIS.
‘The consensus is that journalists will not be able to resist political influence in editorial decision-making until they have legal protection.’
News content on Swazi TV is skewed toward government interests and stories about the king always get preference. If footage of the king comes in too late to be allocated the top story, the presenter will have to explain on air why the story was not given priority, the report states.
I think Swazi TV will never improve while it remains under government control. As it stands the television channel is not much more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the monarchy and the government. As the summons of the Swazi TV board by the Minister of Public Service and Information shows, people who work at the station do so under extreme duress.
While this continues the brightest and best people will refuse to work at the station and only the less-good or government lackeys will be attracted to Swazi TV. If we really want improvements at Swazi TV we should stop arguing about the quality of this programme or that programme and instead campaign for the government to give up its control and let the station be run by professionals who know what they are doing.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
POLITICIANS INTERFERE AT SWAZI TV
TWO WEEKS TO SAVE SWAZI TV
The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (Monday 18 February 2008) that the Auditor General has launched ‘intensive investigations’ into the financial accounts of the state-controlled television station.
To add to this the entire board of directors of Swazi TV were summoned before the Minister of Public Service and Information S’gayoyo Magongo yesterday to explain the current problems at the station.
Last week it was revealed that an auditor’s letter had exposed what could turn out to be financial malpractice at Swazi TV.
The Times of Swaziland reported on Friday (15 February 2008) that Magongo also wanted an explanation on accusations made at a media conference by the Swazi TV chief executive Vukani Maziya that political interference was killing the station.
Meanwhile, the Times reports that the office of the Auditor General has eight weeks to complete an investigation of Swazi TV and report to a select committee of the Swazi Parliament.
The Auditor General’s investigation was launched before the most recent allegation about funds was made. According to the Times, Parliament last November (2007) tasked the committee to investigate allegations of mismanagement and maladministration.
Meanwhile, Swazi TV has come in for criticism for the type of programmes it broadcasts.
Also in the Times on Friday, the newspaper’s television critic reported that Education Minister Themba Msibi had given Swazi TV ‘a nudge on the shoulder’ to get the station to broadcast ‘educational shows’.
The Times reported Msibi, who was speaking at a school function, saying that the Swazi public wanted more local content on the screens. There was a need, the Times reported the minister saying, for TV programmes that empower the Swazi, such as how to draw up a business plan.
This type of criticism of Swazi TV programming is not new.
The recently published African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007 report had a lot to say about Swazi TV. It found, ‘There is much less diversity of programming on Swazi TV than on radio. The programme guide is still dominated by foreign content – news (CNN and Deutsche Welle), movies and soap operas. There has been a slight increase in local content in the last two years, but the lack of programme diversity is still severe enough to drive many (those who can afford it) to watch South African television.’
There has been a slight increase in domestic production in the last two years. New programmes include a show on siSwati praise names, an interview programme and programmes promoting local musicians. But resources are scarce, so the quality of production is poor.
There are also concerns that Swazi TV does not get enough funding for it to run adequately. At Swazi TV ‘resources are scarce, quality of programmes is poor and there is very little local content. Swazi TV relies mostly on government subsidies, but supplements its income with license fees and advertising.’
The AMB report was produced by the media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Eight panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in July 2007 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland.
The AMB report said that Swazi TV can be viewed by people in about three quarters of the kingdom, but it is not considered to be popular among viewers. The report said that people who do watch it do so because they ‘don’t have a choice’.
Swazi TV is controlled by the government and the station’s editorial independence when it comes to news and current affairs is not guaranteed in law, ‘though in practice there is some effort to resist political influence’.
The report states,
‘Journalists at both broadcasters [state-controlled SBIS radio and Swazi TV] are demonstrating more freedom in editorial decision-making and taking more risks by including progressive voices and running stories critical of government. For example, during the recent strike (July 2007), trade unionists were given considerable airtime on both SBIS and Swazi TV to air their grievances.
‘In part, this new editorial license has been put down to the protections brought in by the Constitution. But mostly it is thought to be motivated by a staff rebellion against management (particularly in the case of SBIS). In other words, it is not so much fuelled by a desire to fight for media freedom, but rather driven by internal politics and personality issues.
‘Despite efforts to exercise greater editorial independence, journalists still work under considerable constraints. For instance, the crippling border blockades instigated by a group lobbying for political reform (April 2007) were not given any coverage on SBIS.
‘The consensus is that journalists will not be able to resist political influence in editorial decision-making until they have legal protection.’
News content on Swazi TV is skewed toward government interests and stories about the king always get preference. If footage of the king comes in too late to be allocated the top story, the presenter will have to explain on air why the story was not given priority, the report states.
I think Swazi TV will never improve while it remains under government control. As it stands the television channel is not much more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the monarchy and the government. As the summons of the Swazi TV board by the Minister of Public Service and Information shows, people who work at the station do so under extreme duress.
While this continues the brightest and best people will refuse to work at the station and only the less-good or government lackeys will be attracted to Swazi TV. If we really want improvements at Swazi TV we should stop arguing about the quality of this programme or that programme and instead campaign for the government to give up its control and let the station be run by professionals who know what they are doing.
See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
POLITICIANS INTERFERE AT SWAZI TV
TWO WEEKS TO SAVE SWAZI TV
SWAZI WOMEN AND AIDS DISCUSSION
A post I wrote two weeks ago about a ‘minor’ girl who appeared in court and was found guilty of committing abortion after she was coerced into having sex (but not raped) by a married man has sparked some discussion on the Internet.
Arnau Van Wyngaard of the Swaziland Reformed Church, who has more than 20 years experience as a full-time missionary in Swaziland, has a website where he discusses his ideas about contemporary mission.
He picked up my post and started a discussion on his blog Mission Issues about women and AIDS in Swaziland.
If you want to read the comments and join in you can find the discussion here.
See also
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
Arnau Van Wyngaard of the Swaziland Reformed Church, who has more than 20 years experience as a full-time missionary in Swaziland, has a website where he discusses his ideas about contemporary mission.
He picked up my post and started a discussion on his blog Mission Issues about women and AIDS in Swaziland.
If you want to read the comments and join in you can find the discussion here.
See also
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
Monday, 18 February 2008
SWAZI NEWSPAPER CENSORS CRITICISM
Swaziland’s Weekend Observer newspaper has censored criticism about itself.
The newspaper decided not to let its readers know just how badly it misreported one of Swaziland’s leading non-government organisations.
The newspaper misrepresented the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter in a report of MISA’s latest survey on the media, the African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007.
As I reported before the Weekend Observer allowed Channel Swazi director Qhawe Mamba to ‘punch holes in’ the survey, recently published by MISA.
The Weekend Observer said that the AMB survey had said that Channel Swazi was co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The newspaper then allowed Mamba and Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland’s only other television station, the government-controlled Swazi TV, to criticise the AMB report.
At no time was MISA asked to comment. That was unprofessional enough, but as I reported the AMB report never said Channel Swazi was co-owned by the king. So there was no story – and the Weekend Observer would have known this if anyone there had bothered to read the survey that was being criticised.
MISA complained about the Weekend Observer report and it was given space for a ‘right to reply’ in the following issue (9-10 February 2008). This is laudable and is in line with article 10 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of conduct, which states that a fair opportunity should be given to individuals and organisations to respond to issues
But the Weekend Observer went on to let itself and its readers down badly.
MISA gave an account of the AMB and how it was based on the views of a panel of media experts in Swaziland ‘knowledgeable about the media landscape in Swaziland’.
MISA gave Mamba and Maziya a ticking off. MISA said,
‘We are seriously concerned that the AMB was so misconstrued by the very people who most need to understand it. The report is a vital tool for both Mamba and Maziya. Understanding how people perceive your station is one way of improving and developing your product. Instead of taking the feedback personally they should be thankful for the assistance.’
And as far as the Weekend Observer’s readers know, the criticism ended there.
There was an additional paragraph in the ‘right to reply’, but the Weekend Observer cut it out.
This is what that paragraph said.
‘But what is of most concern to us at MISA is that the Weekend Observer published such an unbalanced story. The journalist never called MISA for comment so that he could present both sides of the issue. The reader was only given the opinions of Mamba and Maziya. But, of course, that's no surprise to us. The AMB cites lack of balance as one of the major deficiencies in the Swazi media. Now is that fact or mere perception?’
I’m with MISA on this one. The Weekend Observer reporter didn’t read the survey, then allowed the survey’s publishers to be seriously criticized by the two leading players in Swaziland television. Then the reporter didn’t allow MISA to respond to the criticism.
But it’s not all the reporter’s fault. The news editor and editor of the Weekend Observer allowed a seriously unbalanced news report to appear in the newspaper.
Unfortunately, as the AMB survey itself pointed out, this was not an isolated incident. I believe the Swazi media are seriously biased. Sometimes this is deliberate, for example when the views of ruling elites are treated as truth. Sometimes this is because the journalists have no idea what they are doing. Just watch Mamba’s Channel Swazi news any day of the week to see what I mean.
See also
OFFICIAL – CHANNEL SWAZI IS BIASED
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
DIRE OUTPUT ON SWAZI CHANNEL S
The newspaper decided not to let its readers know just how badly it misreported one of Swaziland’s leading non-government organisations.
The newspaper misrepresented the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter in a report of MISA’s latest survey on the media, the African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007.
As I reported before the Weekend Observer allowed Channel Swazi director Qhawe Mamba to ‘punch holes in’ the survey, recently published by MISA.
The Weekend Observer said that the AMB survey had said that Channel Swazi was co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The newspaper then allowed Mamba and Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland’s only other television station, the government-controlled Swazi TV, to criticise the AMB report.
At no time was MISA asked to comment. That was unprofessional enough, but as I reported the AMB report never said Channel Swazi was co-owned by the king. So there was no story – and the Weekend Observer would have known this if anyone there had bothered to read the survey that was being criticised.
MISA complained about the Weekend Observer report and it was given space for a ‘right to reply’ in the following issue (9-10 February 2008). This is laudable and is in line with article 10 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of conduct, which states that a fair opportunity should be given to individuals and organisations to respond to issues
But the Weekend Observer went on to let itself and its readers down badly.
MISA gave an account of the AMB and how it was based on the views of a panel of media experts in Swaziland ‘knowledgeable about the media landscape in Swaziland’.
MISA gave Mamba and Maziya a ticking off. MISA said,
‘We are seriously concerned that the AMB was so misconstrued by the very people who most need to understand it. The report is a vital tool for both Mamba and Maziya. Understanding how people perceive your station is one way of improving and developing your product. Instead of taking the feedback personally they should be thankful for the assistance.’
And as far as the Weekend Observer’s readers know, the criticism ended there.
There was an additional paragraph in the ‘right to reply’, but the Weekend Observer cut it out.
This is what that paragraph said.
‘But what is of most concern to us at MISA is that the Weekend Observer published such an unbalanced story. The journalist never called MISA for comment so that he could present both sides of the issue. The reader was only given the opinions of Mamba and Maziya. But, of course, that's no surprise to us. The AMB cites lack of balance as one of the major deficiencies in the Swazi media. Now is that fact or mere perception?’
I’m with MISA on this one. The Weekend Observer reporter didn’t read the survey, then allowed the survey’s publishers to be seriously criticized by the two leading players in Swaziland television. Then the reporter didn’t allow MISA to respond to the criticism.
But it’s not all the reporter’s fault. The news editor and editor of the Weekend Observer allowed a seriously unbalanced news report to appear in the newspaper.
Unfortunately, as the AMB survey itself pointed out, this was not an isolated incident. I believe the Swazi media are seriously biased. Sometimes this is deliberate, for example when the views of ruling elites are treated as truth. Sometimes this is because the journalists have no idea what they are doing. Just watch Mamba’s Channel Swazi news any day of the week to see what I mean.
See also
OFFICIAL – CHANNEL SWAZI IS BIASED
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
DIRE OUTPUT ON SWAZI CHANNEL S
SWAZI JOURNALISTS AND FREEBIES
Cell phone company MTN is certainly getting hectares worth of free publicity in the Swazi newspapers.
The Times of Swaziland on Friday (15 February 2008) devoted a page to a free trip its managing editor Martin Dlamini had taken to the AFCON football tournament in Ghana at the phone company’s expense. The Times thought the ‘report’ was so important it cancelled the managing editor’s regular Just Thinking column of comment on current events to make room for it.
This gave readers the chance to be told by Martin that he stayed in a five-star hotel and attended a gala dinner. He was also given E500 (about 75 US dollars) worth of free MTN airtime.
Martin got a bit too excited. He told his readers that he was one of the privileged few ‘to be granted an exclusive audience’ with the MTN Group President. Someone should remind Martin that ‘audiences’ are granted by monarchs and emperors, not mere businessmen.
Martin was not alone on the trip. I reported on Friday how the Chief Editor of the Swazi Observer Musa Ndlangamandla took four pages of his newspaper to report on his free trip to the AFCON football tournament in Ghana. Musa was like a child let loose in a toy shop. He seemed especially pleased that he was given a room to himself in a hotel.
I made a lot of fun of Musa on Friday but there is a serious point about all this freeloading the Swazi media have been doing with MTN.
Journalists are supposed to be representatives of their readers (or listeners or viewers) and to do this job well they need to be independent of the people or organisations they report about. With this independence comes credibility. When journalists take gifts, holidays, free airtime, lunches or other ‘freebies’ they destroy their credibility.
Many news organisations across the world forbid staff to any ‘freebies’, even relatively small items like free tickets to concerts or sports events.
In Swaziland the Swaziland National Association of Journalists Code of Conduct is silent on freebies, but Article 3 on professional integrity does state that journalists should avoid conflicts of interest and should not accept bribes.
I don’t think that the free trips at MTN’s expense with fine meals and free airtime amount to ‘bribes’ but the acceptance of freebies by the journalists does compromise their objectivity, or, at the very least, appears to.
See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ GRAVY TRAIN
The Times of Swaziland on Friday (15 February 2008) devoted a page to a free trip its managing editor Martin Dlamini had taken to the AFCON football tournament in Ghana at the phone company’s expense. The Times thought the ‘report’ was so important it cancelled the managing editor’s regular Just Thinking column of comment on current events to make room for it.
This gave readers the chance to be told by Martin that he stayed in a five-star hotel and attended a gala dinner. He was also given E500 (about 75 US dollars) worth of free MTN airtime.
Martin got a bit too excited. He told his readers that he was one of the privileged few ‘to be granted an exclusive audience’ with the MTN Group President. Someone should remind Martin that ‘audiences’ are granted by monarchs and emperors, not mere businessmen.
Martin was not alone on the trip. I reported on Friday how the Chief Editor of the Swazi Observer Musa Ndlangamandla took four pages of his newspaper to report on his free trip to the AFCON football tournament in Ghana. Musa was like a child let loose in a toy shop. He seemed especially pleased that he was given a room to himself in a hotel.
I made a lot of fun of Musa on Friday but there is a serious point about all this freeloading the Swazi media have been doing with MTN.
Journalists are supposed to be representatives of their readers (or listeners or viewers) and to do this job well they need to be independent of the people or organisations they report about. With this independence comes credibility. When journalists take gifts, holidays, free airtime, lunches or other ‘freebies’ they destroy their credibility.
Many news organisations across the world forbid staff to any ‘freebies’, even relatively small items like free tickets to concerts or sports events.
In Swaziland the Swaziland National Association of Journalists Code of Conduct is silent on freebies, but Article 3 on professional integrity does state that journalists should avoid conflicts of interest and should not accept bribes.
I don’t think that the free trips at MTN’s expense with fine meals and free airtime amount to ‘bribes’ but the acceptance of freebies by the journalists does compromise their objectivity, or, at the very least, appears to.
See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ GRAVY TRAIN
Friday, 15 February 2008
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ GRAVY TRAIN
When the Swazi Observer jumps on the gravy train it does it with style.
Readers were treated to four full pages yesterday (Thursday 14 February 2008) of Chief Editor Musa Ndlangamandla’s all expenses paid trip to the African Football Cup of Nations (AFCON) tournament in Accra, Ghana.
The trip was courtesy of cellphone company MTN.
The Observer headline said it all - ONLY THE BEST FOR MTN GUESTS. Musa began his fearless account of the trip thus, ‘They don’t call it the leading cellular network company for nothing.’
Clearly not, you have to wine and dine a few editors before they call you that.
Here’s a flavour of the crusading, independent journalism so loved by the Observer.
‘From the chartered private jet, to the world-class cuisine and an assortment of expensive wines and other mood altering beverages – the stage for a truly unforgettable experience was set from the word go.
‘All five nights were spent in individual rooms of five-star hotels in South Africa and Accra.
‘MTN Group ensured the best of comfort as the guests were chauffer driven in air-conditioned coaches that were escorted through the maze of congested streets of the Ghanaian highways.’
Musa went on and on and on. … But I won’t.
Let’s leave the prose and go on to the pictures. Here’s Musa with Jose Mourinho, the former boss of Chelsea football club. There’s Musa with president of the World Football Governing Body FIFA, Sepp Blatter. Isn’t that Musa on the football field at the AFCON cup final with members of the winning Egyptian team? Oh look, there he is again, this time with one of the Ghanaian players.
Musa wasn’t the only Swazi with his snout in the trough. Other members of the Swazi media were along for the party.
Musa let the cat out of the bag. ‘The Ghanaian dancers, drum-beat and song filled the air as MTN Swaziland’s Khulile Dlamini ensured that everyone was not disturbed as they let their hair down.’
There was only one sour note to the trip. The guys went on a tour to St George’s Castle at Elmina, which was where slaves were kept before being traded off to America. Musa and his mates were annoyed because the trip was meant to take two hours, but instead it took five and they all arrived impatient.
‘But they all thoroughly enjoyed the special moment in history, bought souvenirs and experienced the cells where many African brothers and sisters died of dehydration and starvation.’
I’ve written before about the unhealthy relationship between the Observer and MTN. Last August (2007) the newspaper devoted three pages to the launch of an MTN product. The Observer highlighted the headlines in the shade of yellow that MTN uses in its corporate logo. In addition, there were five pictures, all with the MTN logo prominent, and in total there were at least 25 people shown wearing MTN T-shirts and caps, all in the corporate colour and all with company logos.
This was a massive amount of free publicity masquerading as independent editorial. So was yesterday’s coverage of a non event.
They say there is no such thing as a free lunch. The Observer will have to pay for this hospitality with lots of positive coverage in the weeks and months ahead.
Where will the Observer be the next time there is a service outage and angry customers turn against MTN? What position will the newspaper take when some other company wants to break MTN’s monopoly in Swaziland?
I think we all know the answers.
See also
NEWS AND ADVERTISING BLUR
Readers were treated to four full pages yesterday (Thursday 14 February 2008) of Chief Editor Musa Ndlangamandla’s all expenses paid trip to the African Football Cup of Nations (AFCON) tournament in Accra, Ghana.
The trip was courtesy of cellphone company MTN.
The Observer headline said it all - ONLY THE BEST FOR MTN GUESTS. Musa began his fearless account of the trip thus, ‘They don’t call it the leading cellular network company for nothing.’
Clearly not, you have to wine and dine a few editors before they call you that.
Here’s a flavour of the crusading, independent journalism so loved by the Observer.
‘From the chartered private jet, to the world-class cuisine and an assortment of expensive wines and other mood altering beverages – the stage for a truly unforgettable experience was set from the word go.
‘All five nights were spent in individual rooms of five-star hotels in South Africa and Accra.
‘MTN Group ensured the best of comfort as the guests were chauffer driven in air-conditioned coaches that were escorted through the maze of congested streets of the Ghanaian highways.’
Musa went on and on and on. … But I won’t.
Let’s leave the prose and go on to the pictures. Here’s Musa with Jose Mourinho, the former boss of Chelsea football club. There’s Musa with president of the World Football Governing Body FIFA, Sepp Blatter. Isn’t that Musa on the football field at the AFCON cup final with members of the winning Egyptian team? Oh look, there he is again, this time with one of the Ghanaian players.
Musa wasn’t the only Swazi with his snout in the trough. Other members of the Swazi media were along for the party.
Musa let the cat out of the bag. ‘The Ghanaian dancers, drum-beat and song filled the air as MTN Swaziland’s Khulile Dlamini ensured that everyone was not disturbed as they let their hair down.’
There was only one sour note to the trip. The guys went on a tour to St George’s Castle at Elmina, which was where slaves were kept before being traded off to America. Musa and his mates were annoyed because the trip was meant to take two hours, but instead it took five and they all arrived impatient.
‘But they all thoroughly enjoyed the special moment in history, bought souvenirs and experienced the cells where many African brothers and sisters died of dehydration and starvation.’
I’ve written before about the unhealthy relationship between the Observer and MTN. Last August (2007) the newspaper devoted three pages to the launch of an MTN product. The Observer highlighted the headlines in the shade of yellow that MTN uses in its corporate logo. In addition, there were five pictures, all with the MTN logo prominent, and in total there were at least 25 people shown wearing MTN T-shirts and caps, all in the corporate colour and all with company logos.
This was a massive amount of free publicity masquerading as independent editorial. So was yesterday’s coverage of a non event.
They say there is no such thing as a free lunch. The Observer will have to pay for this hospitality with lots of positive coverage in the weeks and months ahead.
Where will the Observer be the next time there is a service outage and angry customers turn against MTN? What position will the newspaper take when some other company wants to break MTN’s monopoly in Swaziland?
I think we all know the answers.
See also
NEWS AND ADVERTISING BLUR
HAIL TO THE SWAZI CHIEFS
I wrote last Tuesday (5 February 2008) about how you can learn so much about culture in Swaziland by reading the Swazi newspapers, even when journalists don’t realise they are teachers.
Here’s another example. It shows how much ordinary people in Swaziland have to bow down to their chiefs. If you are a young person and you upset the Big Man you could have your future ruined.
This report was in the Times Sunday (3 February 2008).
MANZINI – For the past two weeks Swazi children hoping to further their education outside the country were faced with the daunting task of coming face to face with the Scholarship Board.
The interviews were held at the Manzini Nazerene Nursing College and the announcements were made over national radio.
Most of the hopefuls that were interviewed by the Times Sunday said the most crucial question was ‘who is your Chief?’
For the students who fumbled that question they were asked if they were serious about their future.
‘You do not know who your chief is and you are hoping to get a scholarship seriously,’ said one hopeful when asked how her interview went.
She said they gave her such a tough time that she was on the brink of tears. I am not saying it’s right not to know your chief, but I can’t believe I could lose my whole scholastic future because I forgot a certain name,’ said the student.
She said luckily for her she was able to remember her chief’s name after she was given a second chance.
Chiefs sign the scholarship forms once the scholarship is granted.
The signing of the scholarship forms is only half of the story. Chiefs in Swaziland are personally appointed by King Mswati III and traditionally they lead a band of area elders. They can decide who lives where and some have been known to banish people from their homes for not obeying rules. Sometimes chiefs demand tithes from their subjects such as a beast or money.
Chiefs also settle disputes such as over land, accusations of witchcraft, and wandering livestock that harm someone’s crops. Many also settle criminal disputes that probably should best be left to magistrates.
Chiefs are given stipends by the national treasury, but not salaries, and community members pay their allegiance to chiefs by weeding and harvesting their fields, and constructing the traditional mud and thatch huts usually found at chiefs’ homesteads.
See also
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
Here’s another example. It shows how much ordinary people in Swaziland have to bow down to their chiefs. If you are a young person and you upset the Big Man you could have your future ruined.
This report was in the Times Sunday (3 February 2008).
MANZINI – For the past two weeks Swazi children hoping to further their education outside the country were faced with the daunting task of coming face to face with the Scholarship Board.
The interviews were held at the Manzini Nazerene Nursing College and the announcements were made over national radio.
Most of the hopefuls that were interviewed by the Times Sunday said the most crucial question was ‘who is your Chief?’
For the students who fumbled that question they were asked if they were serious about their future.
‘You do not know who your chief is and you are hoping to get a scholarship seriously,’ said one hopeful when asked how her interview went.
She said they gave her such a tough time that she was on the brink of tears. I am not saying it’s right not to know your chief, but I can’t believe I could lose my whole scholastic future because I forgot a certain name,’ said the student.
She said luckily for her she was able to remember her chief’s name after she was given a second chance.
Chiefs sign the scholarship forms once the scholarship is granted.
The signing of the scholarship forms is only half of the story. Chiefs in Swaziland are personally appointed by King Mswati III and traditionally they lead a band of area elders. They can decide who lives where and some have been known to banish people from their homes for not obeying rules. Sometimes chiefs demand tithes from their subjects such as a beast or money.
Chiefs also settle disputes such as over land, accusations of witchcraft, and wandering livestock that harm someone’s crops. Many also settle criminal disputes that probably should best be left to magistrates.
Chiefs are given stipends by the national treasury, but not salaries, and community members pay their allegiance to chiefs by weeding and harvesting their fields, and constructing the traditional mud and thatch huts usually found at chiefs’ homesteads.
See also
FEW RIGHTS FOR SWAZI WOMEN
Thursday, 14 February 2008
LOVE IS IN THE SWAZILAND AIR
Love is in the air, according to the Times of Swaziland as it introduced an eight page Valentine’s Day supplement stuffed full of advertising on Tuesday (12 February 2008).
I don’t know if love is really in the air but a lot of people are definitively hoping that cash will be in the tills as the newspaper’s advertisers encouraged people to part with their hard earned money at restaurants, holiday destinations, beauty salons and (I don’t really get the connection here) used car lots.
Swazis keep going on about their culture and how superior it is to more developed countries so it comes as a huge surprise that every year come 14 February the old pagan custom of St Valentine’s is celebrated in the kingdom.
Of course, ordinary people don’t celebrate since about 70 percent of Swaziland’s near one million population live in abject poverty on an income of less than one US dollar a day (E7). – and advertisers aren’t interested in them because they’ve got no money to spend.
But the Times, a newspaper that doesn’t really care about ordinary Swazis, indulged its fantasy view of what Swaziland is like with gushing praise for this fancy restaurant and that romantic hotel. Each gush was accompanied by a paid-for advert.
But what exactly does the Times think are we celebrating on St Valentine’s Day? The Times believes it’s all about a man who in 269 AD was martyred because he refused to give up Christianity.
Not so, according to modern thinking.
Valentine’s Days has no relation to Saints. The Encyclopedia Britannica has St Valentine's Day as a lovers’ festival and the modern tradition of sending valentine cards has no relation to the saints but, rather seems to be connected either with the Roman fertility festival of Lupercus or with the mating season of birds.
This information is reiterated by the Encyclopedia Americana where the customs of Valentine’s Day have been handed down from the Roman festival of the Lupercalia, celebrated in the month of February, when the names of young women were put into a box and drawn out by men as chance directed. This is the origin of Valentine’s Day cards linking men and women together for sexual purposes.
My personal favourite explanation comes from Metro Magazine.
Metro says it all began with two ill-fated Romans - both named Valentine - who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, got executed and became Christian martyrs. The two Valentines lived in third-century Rome as out-of-the-closet Christians, sharing not only a name, but a death date – 14 February. Their cult was grafted onto the very popular Lupercalia festivities held every 15 February. During the pagan celebration, scantily clad young men called Luperci would run around town, sacrificing goats and playfully whipping women with goatskin thongs. Romans thought this behaviour would increase fertility, and no doubt it did.
So, Times of Swaziland, if you must celebrate St Valentine’s do it properly. Bring on the women, the scantily clad men …. And don’t forget the goatskin thongs.
I don’t know if love is really in the air but a lot of people are definitively hoping that cash will be in the tills as the newspaper’s advertisers encouraged people to part with their hard earned money at restaurants, holiday destinations, beauty salons and (I don’t really get the connection here) used car lots.
Swazis keep going on about their culture and how superior it is to more developed countries so it comes as a huge surprise that every year come 14 February the old pagan custom of St Valentine’s is celebrated in the kingdom.
Of course, ordinary people don’t celebrate since about 70 percent of Swaziland’s near one million population live in abject poverty on an income of less than one US dollar a day (E7). – and advertisers aren’t interested in them because they’ve got no money to spend.
But the Times, a newspaper that doesn’t really care about ordinary Swazis, indulged its fantasy view of what Swaziland is like with gushing praise for this fancy restaurant and that romantic hotel. Each gush was accompanied by a paid-for advert.
But what exactly does the Times think are we celebrating on St Valentine’s Day? The Times believes it’s all about a man who in 269 AD was martyred because he refused to give up Christianity.
Not so, according to modern thinking.
Valentine’s Days has no relation to Saints. The Encyclopedia Britannica has St Valentine's Day as a lovers’ festival and the modern tradition of sending valentine cards has no relation to the saints but, rather seems to be connected either with the Roman fertility festival of Lupercus or with the mating season of birds.
This information is reiterated by the Encyclopedia Americana where the customs of Valentine’s Day have been handed down from the Roman festival of the Lupercalia, celebrated in the month of February, when the names of young women were put into a box and drawn out by men as chance directed. This is the origin of Valentine’s Day cards linking men and women together for sexual purposes.
My personal favourite explanation comes from Metro Magazine.
Metro says it all began with two ill-fated Romans - both named Valentine - who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, got executed and became Christian martyrs. The two Valentines lived in third-century Rome as out-of-the-closet Christians, sharing not only a name, but a death date – 14 February. Their cult was grafted onto the very popular Lupercalia festivities held every 15 February. During the pagan celebration, scantily clad young men called Luperci would run around town, sacrificing goats and playfully whipping women with goatskin thongs. Romans thought this behaviour would increase fertility, and no doubt it did.
So, Times of Swaziland, if you must celebrate St Valentine’s do it properly. Bring on the women, the scantily clad men …. And don’t forget the goatskin thongs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)