Swaziland is a ‘ticking time bomb’ as the Swazi army prepares to set up military bases across the kingdom.
People will not stand for it and will push for democracy in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, according to the editor of one of Swaziland’s few independent newspapers who is predicting ‘evil people’ are going to turn the kingdom ‘into one that is ungovernable’.
Mbongeni Mbingo, editor of the Times Sunday, said the deployment of the army across Swaziland might provoke people to demand democracy.
Writing in his own newspaper on Sunday (23 March 2008) Mbingo said,
‘It is now clear that there are people who are out to destroy this country. These are evil people who have their evil dreams of turning this country into one that is ungovernable. And you wonder what it is they will achieve when the country is in the ruins!’
He added, ‘And it is not the people from PUDEMO [a banned political party] or other progressive formations we have to fear now, it is the people who worm themselves around the king and proclaim undying love for him. They are a danger to our peace and prosperity.
‘But they must be warned that their action will not serve anything but to destroy this country – and that time is nigh.’
On the previous Monday (17 Mach 2008), protesting bus drivers and conductors had blocked off the centre of Manzini -Swaziland’s second city. Police used brutal force against protestors.
Mbingo wrote,
‘The patience of the people, as witnessed on Monday with the protests at the Manzini bus rank when Manzini came to a standstill, is wearing thin, and now it will not take long before things really get out of hand.
‘The danger about this protest on Monday is that those people have realised they can take matters into their own hands and win. It must not be perceived that it was the bus conductors and drivers who are lawless people who did this, but these are people in our society who believe they have been pushed to the edge, and could not take it any longer.
‘It is a warning that sooner or later, this whole country will ground to a standstill.
‘But somehow, miraculously even, people don’t realise this, or are intentionally pushing the people to revolt, because they have their own selfish ends to meet.’
Mbingo went on, ‘The protests on Monday are a big warning to everyone that this generation of people is not going to allow things to be run as they were, and these people will no longer accept being treated as subjects, but they are people who have their rights that need to be protected – and respected.’
Mbingo went on to say there was no reason to deploy the army since there was no national emergency at present. If there were to be a state of emergency some time soon it would be caused by the army.
‘Unfortunately, this is a bad move that will backfire badly, because if anything the army on our streets does not do anything to scare any more, rather it pushes the people to realising that a full democracy is on the horizon,’ Mbingo said.
‘If government and the ruling elite don’t take action or indeed notice, the tide will turn in time and this country will seriously get into ruin.
‘It’s been an accident waiting to happen, but now I get the feeling it is only a matter of time.’
See also
SWAZILAND ‘TO BE MILITARY STATE’
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Monday, 24 March 2008
SWAZI UNIONS AID ATTACKED WORKERS
A total of 40 workers were hospitalised after Swazi police attacked them during a legal strike.
And 11 of them are so seriously injured they have not been able to return to work.
These figures were revealed by trade unionists during a public handover of cash to help pay the medical bills of textile workers.
Four public sector unions donated E4,000 (about 500 US Dollars).
At the handover, which received coverage in Swazi newspapers and on Swazi TV, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) President Simon Makhanya criticised the police’s attack on the strikers, who were mostly women.
The Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) reported that Makhanya was disappointed at the police ‘who opted to silence the strikers with the nozzle of the gun, while they were engaged in a legal strike’.
The Weekend Observer reported Makhanya saying, ‘It is making us wary and jittery. We will also be going to the table to negotiate on behalf of our members soon. Does this mean that if we fail to agree and our members opt to engage in industrial action we will also be given the same medicine the textile strikers were forced to taste?’
Makhanya went on, ‘The textile strikers were simply demanding a living wage, which was within their rights as the cost of living in the country is extraordinarily high.’
He went on, ‘When they demand better salaries police are deployed to bash them up. Is this a ploy to silence the masses? If it is, sadly for them, it will never work.’
Makhanya said, ‘We are still astounded at the sudden passion police have developed for using their guns.’
Meanwhile, the textile workers union, the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU), is reporting the Swaziland Government to the International Labour Organisation. (The United Nations specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights).
SMAWU President Alex Fakudze told the Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) that it was important for government to define the role of police because the police ended up telling the workers to return to work even though the textile strike was legal.
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
And 11 of them are so seriously injured they have not been able to return to work.
These figures were revealed by trade unionists during a public handover of cash to help pay the medical bills of textile workers.
Four public sector unions donated E4,000 (about 500 US Dollars).
At the handover, which received coverage in Swazi newspapers and on Swazi TV, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) President Simon Makhanya criticised the police’s attack on the strikers, who were mostly women.
The Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) reported that Makhanya was disappointed at the police ‘who opted to silence the strikers with the nozzle of the gun, while they were engaged in a legal strike’.
The Weekend Observer reported Makhanya saying, ‘It is making us wary and jittery. We will also be going to the table to negotiate on behalf of our members soon. Does this mean that if we fail to agree and our members opt to engage in industrial action we will also be given the same medicine the textile strikers were forced to taste?’
Makhanya went on, ‘The textile strikers were simply demanding a living wage, which was within their rights as the cost of living in the country is extraordinarily high.’
He went on, ‘When they demand better salaries police are deployed to bash them up. Is this a ploy to silence the masses? If it is, sadly for them, it will never work.’
Makhanya said, ‘We are still astounded at the sudden passion police have developed for using their guns.’
Meanwhile, the textile workers union, the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU), is reporting the Swaziland Government to the International Labour Organisation. (The United Nations specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights).
SMAWU President Alex Fakudze told the Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) that it was important for government to define the role of police because the police ended up telling the workers to return to work even though the textile strike was legal.
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Friday, 21 March 2008
PRINCE SUES ‘TIMES OF SWAZILAND’
A brother of Swazi King Mswati III is suing the Times of Swaziland for alleged defamation.
Prince Guduza, who is also Speaker of the House of Assembly, wants the newspaper to pay him E2 million (about 285,000 US Dollars) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth E17 million into Swaziland.
The move is not entirely unexpected since in Swaziland people in powerful positions, including Parliamentarians, often sue the independent media in order to try to intimidate them into silence. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten troublesome journalists.
The Nation magazine, an independent monthly comment journal, is currently in court battling a lawsuit by a government official who is suing the magazine for alleged defamation. The official had recently won damages after the Nation failed to appear in court to defend the case. But the Nation later won an order for stay of execution and the case is yet to be argued in court.
In 2007, the Times had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education dismissed by the High Court on a technicality only to be sued by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare over an article about HIV AIDS.
In the same year, the Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault.
What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed.
In a media release on Tuesday (18 March 2008) the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) states that lawyers for Prince Guduza claim that publication of articles in the Times ‘set the tone for further articles and commentaries in the newspaper in which our client was accused of being a liar, unfit to be Speaker of Parliament, abusing his position as Speaker, abuse of power in general and being corrupt and engaging in a generally corrupt relationship with the police.’
For further information on a previous lawsuit against the Times click here
For further information on the Nation case, click here
See also
ONE LAW FOR THE SWAZI PRINCE
Prince Guduza, who is also Speaker of the House of Assembly, wants the newspaper to pay him E2 million (about 285,000 US Dollars) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth E17 million into Swaziland.
The move is not entirely unexpected since in Swaziland people in powerful positions, including Parliamentarians, often sue the independent media in order to try to intimidate them into silence. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten troublesome journalists.
The Nation magazine, an independent monthly comment journal, is currently in court battling a lawsuit by a government official who is suing the magazine for alleged defamation. The official had recently won damages after the Nation failed to appear in court to defend the case. But the Nation later won an order for stay of execution and the case is yet to be argued in court.
In 2007, the Times had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education dismissed by the High Court on a technicality only to be sued by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare over an article about HIV AIDS.
In the same year, the Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault.
What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed.
In a media release on Tuesday (18 March 2008) the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) states that lawyers for Prince Guduza claim that publication of articles in the Times ‘set the tone for further articles and commentaries in the newspaper in which our client was accused of being a liar, unfit to be Speaker of Parliament, abusing his position as Speaker, abuse of power in general and being corrupt and engaging in a generally corrupt relationship with the police.’
For further information on a previous lawsuit against the Times click here
For further information on the Nation case, click here
See also
ONE LAW FOR THE SWAZI PRINCE
Thursday, 20 March 2008
LET’S LOOK AT RURAL SWAZILAND
Swazi journalists should get out of their offices more.
Because when they do they are able to come up with vivid articles about what it is really like to live in Swaziland.
I was reminded of this last Saturday (15 March 2007) by an article in the Swazi News about life at a rural school in Nyakatfo.
The reporter seemed so genuinely shocked by the conditions at the Nazarene primary school the article read as if it was about another country – or even another planet.
‘The school is a sorry sight, it looks like a building you would to find in one of the war torn regions of Africa, yet it is in a country that claimed its independence 40 years ago,’ the report says.
The Swazi News also published photographs of the school, including classrooms without roofs and doors and a class where children are sitting on the cold floor because there is no furniture for them.
‘A new block of three classrooms, which is incomplete, is being used, but it is a health hazard. The floors have no concrete, there are no doors, no furniture, no windows and the pupils are still being exposed to the elements’, the Swazi News reports.
All this the newspaper describes as a ‘disgrace’.
The school principal blames it all on poverty because parents are not able to pay school fees.
The Swazi News is not so convinced. It contrasts the poverty of the school with the expenditure on furniture at the Ministry of Education in Mbabane.
Oddly, the headline to the article, LOOK AT THIS AND TELL US DO WE NEED 40/40 PARTY? is a clear reference to a decision to hold a joint celebration later this year to mark both the 40th birthday of King Mswati III and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from colonial rule.
The celebrations are expected to run into the tens of millions of emalangengi (maybe 2-3 million US dollars), but nowhere in the article is this celebration mentioned. Nonetheless the newspaper has clearly planted a seed of doubt into the minds of readers that the money to be spent on the celebration could be better used elsewhere.
I was pleased to see this article in the Swazi News because too much space in the newspapers in Swaziland is given over to things that happen in urban areas, even though about 77 per cent of the Swaziland population of nearly one million people lives in rural areas.
Neither of the kingdom’s two daily newspapers, the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, make much effort to cover rural areas. The reasons for this are mainly that people in rural areas are mostly too poor to be attractive to advertisers in the papers and the cost of taking the newspapers to remote areas is not economically viable.
A result of this is that too often the newspapers ignore what is going on in the rural areas.
Even though both the daily newspapers pages each week of what they call ‘community news’ this often also ignores rural people. Monday's community news in the Times, (17 March 2008) for example, had three stories: two were about organizations giving donations and the third was a report about students from Northern Ireland in Europe who would be visiting Swaziland in July.
None of these stories really reflect what is going on in the rural areas. Swazi journalists must embrace the village because most of the important stories are taking place outside of the urban areas and are missed by journalists because they have a narrow definition of interest.
Swazi journalism should reflect the concerns and activities of the society it serves and it should mirror society as a whole. The vast majority of Swaziland’s people live in rural areas and because such a large proportion of the population live in rural areas they are likely to be where trends and events that will have major impact on urban areas later on. Rural areas are where environmental changes are first felt. Also, that is where there are social changes are happening, for example with such as land use, people having to abandon the rural areas for towns and such like.
Both the daily papers claim to be national papers. The Observer slogan is ‘We serve the nation.’ The Times calls itself the ‘national newspaper of Swaziland since 1897.’
One of the purposes of the news media is to tell people what is going on in their own country. Unfortunately, the Swazi newspapers tend to mostly tell us what is going on in the towns and because of this they cannot genuinely call themselves ‘national’.
See also
REACH THE GRASSROOTS
A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS
Because when they do they are able to come up with vivid articles about what it is really like to live in Swaziland.
I was reminded of this last Saturday (15 March 2007) by an article in the Swazi News about life at a rural school in Nyakatfo.
The reporter seemed so genuinely shocked by the conditions at the Nazarene primary school the article read as if it was about another country – or even another planet.
‘The school is a sorry sight, it looks like a building you would to find in one of the war torn regions of Africa, yet it is in a country that claimed its independence 40 years ago,’ the report says.
The Swazi News also published photographs of the school, including classrooms without roofs and doors and a class where children are sitting on the cold floor because there is no furniture for them.
‘A new block of three classrooms, which is incomplete, is being used, but it is a health hazard. The floors have no concrete, there are no doors, no furniture, no windows and the pupils are still being exposed to the elements’, the Swazi News reports.
All this the newspaper describes as a ‘disgrace’.
The school principal blames it all on poverty because parents are not able to pay school fees.
The Swazi News is not so convinced. It contrasts the poverty of the school with the expenditure on furniture at the Ministry of Education in Mbabane.
Oddly, the headline to the article, LOOK AT THIS AND TELL US DO WE NEED 40/40 PARTY? is a clear reference to a decision to hold a joint celebration later this year to mark both the 40th birthday of King Mswati III and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from colonial rule.
The celebrations are expected to run into the tens of millions of emalangengi (maybe 2-3 million US dollars), but nowhere in the article is this celebration mentioned. Nonetheless the newspaper has clearly planted a seed of doubt into the minds of readers that the money to be spent on the celebration could be better used elsewhere.
I was pleased to see this article in the Swazi News because too much space in the newspapers in Swaziland is given over to things that happen in urban areas, even though about 77 per cent of the Swaziland population of nearly one million people lives in rural areas.
Neither of the kingdom’s two daily newspapers, the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, make much effort to cover rural areas. The reasons for this are mainly that people in rural areas are mostly too poor to be attractive to advertisers in the papers and the cost of taking the newspapers to remote areas is not economically viable.
A result of this is that too often the newspapers ignore what is going on in the rural areas.
Even though both the daily newspapers pages each week of what they call ‘community news’ this often also ignores rural people. Monday's community news in the Times, (17 March 2008) for example, had three stories: two were about organizations giving donations and the third was a report about students from Northern Ireland in Europe who would be visiting Swaziland in July.
None of these stories really reflect what is going on in the rural areas. Swazi journalists must embrace the village because most of the important stories are taking place outside of the urban areas and are missed by journalists because they have a narrow definition of interest.
Swazi journalism should reflect the concerns and activities of the society it serves and it should mirror society as a whole. The vast majority of Swaziland’s people live in rural areas and because such a large proportion of the population live in rural areas they are likely to be where trends and events that will have major impact on urban areas later on. Rural areas are where environmental changes are first felt. Also, that is where there are social changes are happening, for example with such as land use, people having to abandon the rural areas for towns and such like.
Both the daily papers claim to be national papers. The Observer slogan is ‘We serve the nation.’ The Times calls itself the ‘national newspaper of Swaziland since 1897.’
One of the purposes of the news media is to tell people what is going on in their own country. Unfortunately, the Swazi newspapers tend to mostly tell us what is going on in the towns and because of this they cannot genuinely call themselves ‘national’.
See also
REACH THE GRASSROOTS
A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
SWAZILAND HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT
Congratulations to the Swazi Observer for giving so much attention to the latest report from the US government into human rights abuses in Swaziland.
According to the Observer (14 March 2008) the State Department report contained ‘no fireworks’. I assume by that the newspaper meant there was nothing we haven’t heard before because the report most certainly is a catalogue of human rights abuses in every part of life in Swaziland.
The report looked at the state of human rights in Swaziland in 2007.
The Observer highlighted abuses in the media, how trade union leaders are kept under surveillance and how women and homosexuals are marginalised. This is unusually candid for a newspaper that is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family.
The Observer was also disclosing the contents of the report before the Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini had officially been given a copy. This denies the Prime Minister the chance to tell the kingdom that the authors of the report don’t know what they are talking about (the usual reaction from the Swazi Government to criticism from abroad).
Here are some of the highlights – or maybe I really mean lowlights – of the report. On the media, the report stated
There were reports of harassment of journalists during the year. On July 4 (2007), parliament found Sunday Times editor Mbongeni Mbingo guilty of lack of objectivity and knowledge of parliamentary procedure after he wrote an editorial that criticized Speaker of the House Prince Guduza.
Speaker Guduza had reportedly blocked a motion by a member of parliament (MP) that challenged an alleged secret move by the cabinet and the traditional body, the Swaziland National Council Standing Committee (SNNC), to amend a clause in the constitution. The editorial alleged Prince Guduza and the SNNC sought to lower the qualifications of the chief electoral officer to allow for the incumbent to remain in his current position.
There were reports of government restrictions on media content. On June 27, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo W. Mabuza, barred journalists from government hospitals and banned government hospital staff from talking to the media following an article in the Times of Swaziland that attributed the death of a four-year-old-girl with rabies to the hospital's inadequate supply of drugs.
There were reports of self-censorship during the year. A source in the Media Institute of Southern Africa stated that on a few occasions journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue a particular story, and that the journalists complied.
So thank you Observer, but I must point out that the newspaper missed out some important criticisms contained in the report.
It missed out the part about the lack of democracy in the kingdom and that emphasised the all powerful position held by King Mswati III.
The report stated,
‘The king retains ultimate executive and legislative authority, and parliament has limited authority. Legislation passed by parliament requires the king's assent to become law. Under the constitution, the king chooses the prime minister, the cabinet, two‑thirds of the Senate, many senior civil servants, the chief justice and other justices of the superior courts, members of commissions established by the constitution, and the heads of government offices.’
Here’s what the report said about ‘academic freedom’.
Restrictions on political gatherings and the practice of self‑censorship restricted academic freedom by limiting academic meetings, writings, and discussion on political topics. On April 4 (2007), a public debate organized by University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students to discuss the political crisis in Zimbabwe was cancelled at the last minute by university authorities claiming that they were not given adequate advance notice. The debate was held at a hotel paid for by the students.
To access the Observer coverage of the State Department report click
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
To access the full State Department report click Here
See also
SWAZI LAWYERS DEFEND RIGHTS
According to the Observer (14 March 2008) the State Department report contained ‘no fireworks’. I assume by that the newspaper meant there was nothing we haven’t heard before because the report most certainly is a catalogue of human rights abuses in every part of life in Swaziland.
The report looked at the state of human rights in Swaziland in 2007.
The Observer highlighted abuses in the media, how trade union leaders are kept under surveillance and how women and homosexuals are marginalised. This is unusually candid for a newspaper that is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family.
The Observer was also disclosing the contents of the report before the Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini had officially been given a copy. This denies the Prime Minister the chance to tell the kingdom that the authors of the report don’t know what they are talking about (the usual reaction from the Swazi Government to criticism from abroad).
Here are some of the highlights – or maybe I really mean lowlights – of the report. On the media, the report stated
There were reports of harassment of journalists during the year. On July 4 (2007), parliament found Sunday Times editor Mbongeni Mbingo guilty of lack of objectivity and knowledge of parliamentary procedure after he wrote an editorial that criticized Speaker of the House Prince Guduza.
Speaker Guduza had reportedly blocked a motion by a member of parliament (MP) that challenged an alleged secret move by the cabinet and the traditional body, the Swaziland National Council Standing Committee (SNNC), to amend a clause in the constitution. The editorial alleged Prince Guduza and the SNNC sought to lower the qualifications of the chief electoral officer to allow for the incumbent to remain in his current position.
There were reports of government restrictions on media content. On June 27, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo W. Mabuza, barred journalists from government hospitals and banned government hospital staff from talking to the media following an article in the Times of Swaziland that attributed the death of a four-year-old-girl with rabies to the hospital's inadequate supply of drugs.
There were reports of self-censorship during the year. A source in the Media Institute of Southern Africa stated that on a few occasions journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue a particular story, and that the journalists complied.
So thank you Observer, but I must point out that the newspaper missed out some important criticisms contained in the report.
It missed out the part about the lack of democracy in the kingdom and that emphasised the all powerful position held by King Mswati III.
The report stated,
‘The king retains ultimate executive and legislative authority, and parliament has limited authority. Legislation passed by parliament requires the king's assent to become law. Under the constitution, the king chooses the prime minister, the cabinet, two‑thirds of the Senate, many senior civil servants, the chief justice and other justices of the superior courts, members of commissions established by the constitution, and the heads of government offices.’
Here’s what the report said about ‘academic freedom’.
Restrictions on political gatherings and the practice of self‑censorship restricted academic freedom by limiting academic meetings, writings, and discussion on political topics. On April 4 (2007), a public debate organized by University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students to discuss the political crisis in Zimbabwe was cancelled at the last minute by university authorities claiming that they were not given adequate advance notice. The debate was held at a hotel paid for by the students.
To access the Observer coverage of the State Department report click
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
To access the full State Department report click Here
See also
SWAZI LAWYERS DEFEND RIGHTS
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
A baby may have been tear-gassed to death by Swazi police.
And a pregnant woman is reported to have died after being shot by police during legal protests by striking textile workers.
These are two of the confused reports coming out of Swaziland after another day of police brutality.
Newspapers report today (Tuesday 18 March 2008) that police shot at least six people as the centre of Manzini - Swaziland’s second city - was brought to a standstill. This was during a strike by kombi and bus drivers and conductors.
The Swazi Observer says there are ‘unconfirmed reports’ that a baby ‘had been killed after inhaling teargas’. The Observer says it has not been able to verify the report.
The Times of Swaziland reports that a pregnant textile worker who was allegedly shot and injured by police last Monday (10 March 2008) died of her injuries this past weekend. It is not confirmed if her death was a direct result of the shooting and the textile workers’ trade union has started an inquiry into the matter.
The Times calculates that police have shot 11 people over four days; this includes five textile workers who were shot during disturbances last Friday (14 March 2008).
The latest round of violence occurred when drivers and conductors stopped work in support of textile workers who started a strike two weeks ago on 3 March 2008 and have been victims of vicious police assaults since then.
The police assaults were so severe and prolonged that textile workers voted to suspend their strike because they feared for their safety if they continued.
The drivers and conductors’ strike became confused, according to a report in the Times. Although it is said to have started as solidarity action with the textile workers, it soon became a dispute about recently enacted transport laws.
The Times reported Manzini was in ‘chaos’ as the drivers and conductors took over the city centre and some of them looted shops.
Police attacked the strikers firing shots. Two men who were out shopping and had nothing to do with the dispute were shot by police. One, a 28-year-old man who was out buying cigarettes, was shot in the back. A 19-year-old man was shot in the leg, according to the Times.
In separate incidents, a man standing near a hotel was shot in the buttocks. A bus conductor was shot in the leg as he was running away, trying to escape teargas.
Sonnyboy Masende Zwane, a senator in the Swaziland House of Parliament, witnessed some of the violence. Later, according to the Times, he told the Senate,
‘What I saw there was shocking. Police were shooting at people and also assaulting them.
‘The unfortunate part is that even innocent bystanders were not spared. For instance, even shopkeepers found themselves being beaten such that some shopkeepers decided to close their businesses.’
Police violence is a way of life in Swaziland. In another part of the kingdom, the Times reported that police fired shots and used water canon against students of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) who were protesting at their campus in Luyengo against plans to change their academic programmes.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
And a pregnant woman is reported to have died after being shot by police during legal protests by striking textile workers.
These are two of the confused reports coming out of Swaziland after another day of police brutality.
Newspapers report today (Tuesday 18 March 2008) that police shot at least six people as the centre of Manzini - Swaziland’s second city - was brought to a standstill. This was during a strike by kombi and bus drivers and conductors.
The Swazi Observer says there are ‘unconfirmed reports’ that a baby ‘had been killed after inhaling teargas’. The Observer says it has not been able to verify the report.
The Times of Swaziland reports that a pregnant textile worker who was allegedly shot and injured by police last Monday (10 March 2008) died of her injuries this past weekend. It is not confirmed if her death was a direct result of the shooting and the textile workers’ trade union has started an inquiry into the matter.
The Times calculates that police have shot 11 people over four days; this includes five textile workers who were shot during disturbances last Friday (14 March 2008).
The latest round of violence occurred when drivers and conductors stopped work in support of textile workers who started a strike two weeks ago on 3 March 2008 and have been victims of vicious police assaults since then.
The police assaults were so severe and prolonged that textile workers voted to suspend their strike because they feared for their safety if they continued.
The drivers and conductors’ strike became confused, according to a report in the Times. Although it is said to have started as solidarity action with the textile workers, it soon became a dispute about recently enacted transport laws.
The Times reported Manzini was in ‘chaos’ as the drivers and conductors took over the city centre and some of them looted shops.
Police attacked the strikers firing shots. Two men who were out shopping and had nothing to do with the dispute were shot by police. One, a 28-year-old man who was out buying cigarettes, was shot in the back. A 19-year-old man was shot in the leg, according to the Times.
In separate incidents, a man standing near a hotel was shot in the buttocks. A bus conductor was shot in the leg as he was running away, trying to escape teargas.
Sonnyboy Masende Zwane, a senator in the Swaziland House of Parliament, witnessed some of the violence. Later, according to the Times, he told the Senate,
‘What I saw there was shocking. Police were shooting at people and also assaulting them.
‘The unfortunate part is that even innocent bystanders were not spared. For instance, even shopkeepers found themselves being beaten such that some shopkeepers decided to close their businesses.’
Police violence is a way of life in Swaziland. In another part of the kingdom, the Times reported that police fired shots and used water canon against students of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) who were protesting at their campus in Luyengo against plans to change their academic programmes.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
CENSORSHIP SWAZILAND STYLE
Swazi newspapers are getting praise for the open way they have been reporting the textile strike in Swaziland. Even though there are claims they are under pressure from police not to report the dispute.
But government-controlled SBIS radio has been accused of censoring news about the dispute, which has seen many cases of brutality by armed police against mostly women workers.
I have written before about the way that the newspapers have given vivid detail of the attacks. Even the Swazi Observer, which is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family and is a firm supporter of the status quo in the non-democratic kingdom of Swaziland, has given extensive coverage to the violence.
Now the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has added its praise. In a media statement released yesterday (17 March 2008) COSATU says,
‘The fact that the pro-government media is reporting all this is a positive development as they have been under pressure from the police to report nothing about the strike.
‘The Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union President Alex Fakudze has told COSATU that the state-controlled broadcaster, the Swazi Broadcasting and Information Services, phoned him to say that they could not broadcast a statement he had given them because police had instructed them not to report anything about the strike.
‘The fact that some of the print media have defied similar threats is significant,’ COSATU says.
Getting information about what is going on in Swaziland can be very difficult. The broadcast media in the kingdom is mostly state controlled and therefore is under pressure to censor news that puts the government and its supporters in a bad light. The only ‘independent’ TV station Channel Swazi (Channel S) is owned by a loyal supporter of King Mwsati III and tends to follow an ultra conservative line in its news broadcasts.
Apart from one Christian radio station Voice of the Church that is not really interested in local news, all radio in Swaziland is state controlled.
That only leaves the two newspaper groups, one of which is effectively owned by the Swazi Royal Family, and one that is commercially (but not really politically) independent of government.
There is very little interest from the foreign media about what goes on in Swaziland so the only way we can find out what is going on is through the censored media.
This can cause problems because in any society where there is not a free flow of information, rumours spread like wildfire.
There was a good example of this in action yesterday (17 March 2008) on the Internet. A report has been circulating across the world (I picked up my copy from an email in Canada) saying that one person has died of injuries sustained in a police attack on textile workers and another is not expected to live. The report also talks of police gunfire being heard and ‘unconfirmed reports are of another two deaths including a child from teargas’.
As I write this, it is impossible to say whether this report is true or not. But one thing is sure - if we had a free and independent media in Swaziland we wouldn’t need to go to Canada to find out.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
But government-controlled SBIS radio has been accused of censoring news about the dispute, which has seen many cases of brutality by armed police against mostly women workers.
I have written before about the way that the newspapers have given vivid detail of the attacks. Even the Swazi Observer, which is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family and is a firm supporter of the status quo in the non-democratic kingdom of Swaziland, has given extensive coverage to the violence.
Now the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has added its praise. In a media statement released yesterday (17 March 2008) COSATU says,
‘The fact that the pro-government media is reporting all this is a positive development as they have been under pressure from the police to report nothing about the strike.
‘The Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union President Alex Fakudze has told COSATU that the state-controlled broadcaster, the Swazi Broadcasting and Information Services, phoned him to say that they could not broadcast a statement he had given them because police had instructed them not to report anything about the strike.
‘The fact that some of the print media have defied similar threats is significant,’ COSATU says.
Getting information about what is going on in Swaziland can be very difficult. The broadcast media in the kingdom is mostly state controlled and therefore is under pressure to censor news that puts the government and its supporters in a bad light. The only ‘independent’ TV station Channel Swazi (Channel S) is owned by a loyal supporter of King Mwsati III and tends to follow an ultra conservative line in its news broadcasts.
Apart from one Christian radio station Voice of the Church that is not really interested in local news, all radio in Swaziland is state controlled.
That only leaves the two newspaper groups, one of which is effectively owned by the Swazi Royal Family, and one that is commercially (but not really politically) independent of government.
There is very little interest from the foreign media about what goes on in Swaziland so the only way we can find out what is going on is through the censored media.
This can cause problems because in any society where there is not a free flow of information, rumours spread like wildfire.
There was a good example of this in action yesterday (17 March 2008) on the Internet. A report has been circulating across the world (I picked up my copy from an email in Canada) saying that one person has died of injuries sustained in a police attack on textile workers and another is not expected to live. The report also talks of police gunfire being heard and ‘unconfirmed reports are of another two deaths including a child from teargas’.
As I write this, it is impossible to say whether this report is true or not. But one thing is sure - if we had a free and independent media in Swaziland we wouldn’t need to go to Canada to find out.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
SWAZILAND ‘TO BE MILITARY STATE’
Swaziland will soon be a military state when plans to deploy troops across the kingdom by the end of the month (March 2008) go ahead.
That is the only conclusion that can be reached following a report in the Swazi News (15 March 2008) that military bases are to be set up all over Swaziland.
The Swazi News reported that the Unbutfo Swaziland Defence Force (USDF) ‘will be raiding homes, conducting searches, mounting roadblocks on almost all the roads in the country’.
The USDF says it is doing these things to round up illegal items such as ‘guns, weapons, cars smuggled goods and many other things’, according to the Swazi News.
A spokesman for USDF is quoted saying, ‘such things are putting the lives of the Swazi people at risk and if not taken care of it might result in serious problems’.
Some USDF personnel will not be wearing uniforms during these operations.
Of course, it is the job of the police force and not the USDF to ensure that criminals are captured and brought to justice. The Swazi News smelt a rat when it realised that some of the places the USDF would be operating included ‘breeding spots’ for the banned Peoples’ United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
As might be expected, the army spokesman denied to the Swazi News that the operations had any political motive, but he gave the game away when he said ‘at the moment’ we will not be focussing on political activities. We should all note the bit about ‘at the moment’. With national elections due in October or November this year (2008) people should rightly be suspicious of the USDF activity.
Once the Swazi News report was published all hell broke loose in the kingdom with human rights organisations lining up to condemn the plan.
The Times Sunday (16 March 2008) gave space to the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), which the newspaper described as ‘seething with anger’. SCCCO called the USDF deployment ‘illegal’.
The Times Sunday quoted a statement from Bishop Meshack Mabuza, chair of SCCCO, who said SCCCO would consider taking legal action against the USDF and also against individual officers if the USDF went ahead with the plan.
The Bishop added, ‘It stretches credibility that it is merely coincidental that the areas to be targeted are also those where there has been fertile political activity of the sort frowned upon by those in power, namely oppositional political voices.’
The Bishop went on to say that the Swazi Constitution did not allow people to be stopped and searched unlawfully. ‘The army has not provided any evidence that there are reasonable grounds for setting this right aside.’
It can be no coincidence that recently USDF personnel received huge salary increases from a government that is largely financially bankrupt. We need to ask ourselves why it is that the ruling elite need to keep the armed forces sweet. Perhaps we will find out the answer very soon.
That is the only conclusion that can be reached following a report in the Swazi News (15 March 2008) that military bases are to be set up all over Swaziland.
The Swazi News reported that the Unbutfo Swaziland Defence Force (USDF) ‘will be raiding homes, conducting searches, mounting roadblocks on almost all the roads in the country’.
The USDF says it is doing these things to round up illegal items such as ‘guns, weapons, cars smuggled goods and many other things’, according to the Swazi News.
A spokesman for USDF is quoted saying, ‘such things are putting the lives of the Swazi people at risk and if not taken care of it might result in serious problems’.
Some USDF personnel will not be wearing uniforms during these operations.
Of course, it is the job of the police force and not the USDF to ensure that criminals are captured and brought to justice. The Swazi News smelt a rat when it realised that some of the places the USDF would be operating included ‘breeding spots’ for the banned Peoples’ United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
As might be expected, the army spokesman denied to the Swazi News that the operations had any political motive, but he gave the game away when he said ‘at the moment’ we will not be focussing on political activities. We should all note the bit about ‘at the moment’. With national elections due in October or November this year (2008) people should rightly be suspicious of the USDF activity.
Once the Swazi News report was published all hell broke loose in the kingdom with human rights organisations lining up to condemn the plan.
The Times Sunday (16 March 2008) gave space to the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), which the newspaper described as ‘seething with anger’. SCCCO called the USDF deployment ‘illegal’.
The Times Sunday quoted a statement from Bishop Meshack Mabuza, chair of SCCCO, who said SCCCO would consider taking legal action against the USDF and also against individual officers if the USDF went ahead with the plan.
The Bishop added, ‘It stretches credibility that it is merely coincidental that the areas to be targeted are also those where there has been fertile political activity of the sort frowned upon by those in power, namely oppositional political voices.’
The Bishop went on to say that the Swazi Constitution did not allow people to be stopped and searched unlawfully. ‘The army has not provided any evidence that there are reasonable grounds for setting this right aside.’
It can be no coincidence that recently USDF personnel received huge salary increases from a government that is largely financially bankrupt. We need to ask ourselves why it is that the ruling elite need to keep the armed forces sweet. Perhaps we will find out the answer very soon.
HIV AIDS AND GENDER IN SWAZILAND
The Swazi Observer is the first media house in Swaziland to adopt a policy on HIV AIDS and gender.
All media houses in the kingdom were given the opportunity to take part in a project called the Southern African Media Action Plan on HIV AIDS and Gender (MAP).
MAP is a project to help media houses across southern Africa improve the quality and quantity of HIV AIDS and gender coverage.
A report released at the Media Partners Consultation workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa, last Thursday (13 March 2008) revealed that the Swazi Observer, Voice of the Church radio, Swazi TV and SBIS (Radio Swaziland) had all been visited by a MAP consultant in 2007 who worked with the media houses on formulating policy.
The report states that the Swazi Observer has adopted a HIV AIDS and gender policy and was now trying to build up the skills of journalists in these areas.
Swazi TV is ‘the only media house not to have given buy-in to the MAP process in that country,’ the report states. ‘Swazi TV is engaged in a parallel process of drafting their own policy but they said they would consult MAP for editorial aspects of the policy.’
MAP consultants have been working in 11 countries across southern Africa, including Swaziland.
The MAP report revealed that there were some difficulties in getting media houses involved in the project. The report stated that bureaucracy in newsrooms across the region was a difficult factor in making progress.
‘[A]ppointments are reneged on, refusal to release certain information and failure to set dates for workshops. In some cases, because of the high staff turnover in this sector, change of staff (new boards, new editors or journalists etc) almost always means the facilitators have to start the process all over again to ensure new staff members give buy-in to the process,’ the report states.
The MAP project is not the first attempt to increase the awareness and skills of journalists in southern Africa, but it is thought to be the first that also includes gender awareness.
MAP is coordinated by the Southern African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and Gender Links is responsible for part of the project.
See also
BID TO IMPROVE HIV AIDS REPORTING
POOR HIV AIDS REPORTING IN SWAZILAND
All media houses in the kingdom were given the opportunity to take part in a project called the Southern African Media Action Plan on HIV AIDS and Gender (MAP).
MAP is a project to help media houses across southern Africa improve the quality and quantity of HIV AIDS and gender coverage.
A report released at the Media Partners Consultation workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa, last Thursday (13 March 2008) revealed that the Swazi Observer, Voice of the Church radio, Swazi TV and SBIS (Radio Swaziland) had all been visited by a MAP consultant in 2007 who worked with the media houses on formulating policy.
The report states that the Swazi Observer has adopted a HIV AIDS and gender policy and was now trying to build up the skills of journalists in these areas.
Swazi TV is ‘the only media house not to have given buy-in to the MAP process in that country,’ the report states. ‘Swazi TV is engaged in a parallel process of drafting their own policy but they said they would consult MAP for editorial aspects of the policy.’
MAP consultants have been working in 11 countries across southern Africa, including Swaziland.
The MAP report revealed that there were some difficulties in getting media houses involved in the project. The report stated that bureaucracy in newsrooms across the region was a difficult factor in making progress.
‘[A]ppointments are reneged on, refusal to release certain information and failure to set dates for workshops. In some cases, because of the high staff turnover in this sector, change of staff (new boards, new editors or journalists etc) almost always means the facilitators have to start the process all over again to ensure new staff members give buy-in to the process,’ the report states.
The MAP project is not the first attempt to increase the awareness and skills of journalists in southern Africa, but it is thought to be the first that also includes gender awareness.
MAP is coordinated by the Southern African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and Gender Links is responsible for part of the project.
See also
BID TO IMPROVE HIV AIDS REPORTING
POOR HIV AIDS REPORTING IN SWAZILAND
Monday, 17 March 2008
GENDER AND MEDIA DIVERSITY ONLINE
Information on media and gender in Swaziland and the whole of southern Africa is now available online following the official opening of a new website called the Gender and Media Diversity Centre (GMDC).
By clicking here you can get to an on-line resource centre; a photo library; an email newsletter and online networks and communities.
The GMDC also contains searchable databases of resources.
The GMDC is aimed a number of users, including media practitioners, trainers and training institutions, students, researchers and gender and media activists.
The GMDC wants people to ‘interact with the centre’ in a number of ways. These include submitting ‘examples of your own research to the Media Diversity Journal and online; seek out collaborators on your projects and offer your own experience to others’.
The GMDC says that its main objectives are
- To promote more analytical, responsive and contextual journalism.
- Develop and share a body of knowledge on gender and media diversity.
- Publicise the work of media scholars, students and practitioners.
- Provide resources that makes the links between media theory and practice.
- Create a space for participatory discussion and debate on gender and media diversity.
- Develop global and local partnerships with strategic organisations.
- Become a centre of excellence on new approaches and fresh thinking.
Gender Links and the Gender and Media Southern Africa (GEMSA)manage the centre.
By clicking here you can get to an on-line resource centre; a photo library; an email newsletter and online networks and communities.
The GMDC also contains searchable databases of resources.
The GMDC is aimed a number of users, including media practitioners, trainers and training institutions, students, researchers and gender and media activists.
The GMDC wants people to ‘interact with the centre’ in a number of ways. These include submitting ‘examples of your own research to the Media Diversity Journal and online; seek out collaborators on your projects and offer your own experience to others’.
The GMDC says that its main objectives are
- To promote more analytical, responsive and contextual journalism.
- Develop and share a body of knowledge on gender and media diversity.
- Publicise the work of media scholars, students and practitioners.
- Provide resources that makes the links between media theory and practice.
- Create a space for participatory discussion and debate on gender and media diversity.
- Develop global and local partnerships with strategic organisations.
- Become a centre of excellence on new approaches and fresh thinking.
Gender Links and the Gender and Media Southern Africa (GEMSA)manage the centre.
SWAZILAND CUT OFF FROM I.T. WORLD
News that the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) has taken delivery of 41 new computers – courtesy of a business donor has caused some excitement in the Swazi media.
The Swazi Observer thought the story was so important it published two news reports on the event on the same day (Wednesday 11 March 2008).
For those who missed the story, MTN gave UNISWA the computers and the university has created what is being called a ‘cyberzone’ at its Luyengo campus.
According to one of the Observer reports, the MTN Board of Directors Chairperson Senator Winnie Magagula handed over the computers and said, ‘The country’s ability to achieve and maintain a high standard of living and remain internationally competitive depends on the extent to which it can harness science and technology.’
In its second report the Observer called it a ‘world-class laboratory’.
The Observer reported UNISWA Vice-Chancellor Professor Cisco Magagula saying, ‘the state-of-the-art computer laboratory would make it possible for both staff and students to prepare their lectures, assignments, manuscripts, search for information through the internet and communicate as well as interact through the internet with experts throughout the globe.’
I don’t want to spoil anyone’s party and I certainly believe that UNISWA needs more computers, but all this stuff about ‘world class’ and interacting with experts ‘throughout the globe’ is not true.
What both the Observer reporters missed was that the computers have limited use because the Internet coverage in Swaziland is pretty useless.
It doesn’t matter how expensive the computers are (and the Observer says the total cost of the computers and refurbishing a room for them cost E750,000 – about 110,000 US Dollars) if you can’t connect them to cyberspace.
I work at UNISWA and I can tell you that it is impossible to get on the Internet for most hours of the day. If you want to get on the World Wide Web on weekdays you need to do it before 8am and after 7pm. Sunday mornings is also a good time (when the rest of the Swazi population is at church).
I am not the only one in Swaziland having trouble getting on to the Internet. The Internet World Stats (IWS) website puts Internet ‘usage’ in Swaziland at 3.7 percent of the population or about 41,000 people. Unhelpfully, IWS doesn’t define ‘usage’, but I doubt very much of it means the number of people who have their own accounts with an Internet service provider company.
The African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 published in January 2008 by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)Swaziland Chapter reported that Internet is still unaffordable for most Swazis and is limited to the main towns. Most Internet cafés charge at least E20 (about 3 US dollars) for 15 minutes. Broadband is still not available, as the government is yet to license operators, so connections are slow and unreliable.
Add to this the fact that about 75 percent of the people in Swaziland live in rural areas and electricity doesn’t reach all of them, and that about 70 percent of the population live in abject poverty on an income of less than one US dollar (E7) per day and more than half the population presently rely on food aid from overseas organisations to stop them starving, the availability of an Internet connection is not an important consideration in the lives of most people.
I was at a workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa, last week, which was attended by people from across southern Africa. One of the topics we were talking about was how the Internet ‘empowered’ people to make their own media.
Participants at the workshop gave examples of how people are publishing their own opinions for people to read on the Internet. It is also possible to publish your own ‘newspapers’ on line.
None of this is available to people in Swaziland. The technology isn’t there, but it wouldn’t take much to improve the system. The most obvious thing to do is to introduce broadband connections to Swaziland. This would enable more people to access the Internet and to have faster connections.
This is not an original idea and I wonder why it hasn’t already been done. Perhaps the answer is that Swaziland is not a democracy and that media in Swaziland are mostly under government control. With that kind of control why would the rulers want people finding things out for themselves by using the Internet?
So, until we have a government committed to freedom of expression that is willing to allow Swazis to properly access the Internet, UNISWA’s new computers will remain virtually idle.
The Swazi Observer thought the story was so important it published two news reports on the event on the same day (Wednesday 11 March 2008).
For those who missed the story, MTN gave UNISWA the computers and the university has created what is being called a ‘cyberzone’ at its Luyengo campus.
According to one of the Observer reports, the MTN Board of Directors Chairperson Senator Winnie Magagula handed over the computers and said, ‘The country’s ability to achieve and maintain a high standard of living and remain internationally competitive depends on the extent to which it can harness science and technology.’
In its second report the Observer called it a ‘world-class laboratory’.
The Observer reported UNISWA Vice-Chancellor Professor Cisco Magagula saying, ‘the state-of-the-art computer laboratory would make it possible for both staff and students to prepare their lectures, assignments, manuscripts, search for information through the internet and communicate as well as interact through the internet with experts throughout the globe.’
I don’t want to spoil anyone’s party and I certainly believe that UNISWA needs more computers, but all this stuff about ‘world class’ and interacting with experts ‘throughout the globe’ is not true.
What both the Observer reporters missed was that the computers have limited use because the Internet coverage in Swaziland is pretty useless.
It doesn’t matter how expensive the computers are (and the Observer says the total cost of the computers and refurbishing a room for them cost E750,000 – about 110,000 US Dollars) if you can’t connect them to cyberspace.
I work at UNISWA and I can tell you that it is impossible to get on the Internet for most hours of the day. If you want to get on the World Wide Web on weekdays you need to do it before 8am and after 7pm. Sunday mornings is also a good time (when the rest of the Swazi population is at church).
I am not the only one in Swaziland having trouble getting on to the Internet. The Internet World Stats (IWS) website puts Internet ‘usage’ in Swaziland at 3.7 percent of the population or about 41,000 people. Unhelpfully, IWS doesn’t define ‘usage’, but I doubt very much of it means the number of people who have their own accounts with an Internet service provider company.
The African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 published in January 2008 by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)Swaziland Chapter reported that Internet is still unaffordable for most Swazis and is limited to the main towns. Most Internet cafés charge at least E20 (about 3 US dollars) for 15 minutes. Broadband is still not available, as the government is yet to license operators, so connections are slow and unreliable.
Add to this the fact that about 75 percent of the people in Swaziland live in rural areas and electricity doesn’t reach all of them, and that about 70 percent of the population live in abject poverty on an income of less than one US dollar (E7) per day and more than half the population presently rely on food aid from overseas organisations to stop them starving, the availability of an Internet connection is not an important consideration in the lives of most people.
I was at a workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa, last week, which was attended by people from across southern Africa. One of the topics we were talking about was how the Internet ‘empowered’ people to make their own media.
Participants at the workshop gave examples of how people are publishing their own opinions for people to read on the Internet. It is also possible to publish your own ‘newspapers’ on line.
None of this is available to people in Swaziland. The technology isn’t there, but it wouldn’t take much to improve the system. The most obvious thing to do is to introduce broadband connections to Swaziland. This would enable more people to access the Internet and to have faster connections.
This is not an original idea and I wonder why it hasn’t already been done. Perhaps the answer is that Swaziland is not a democracy and that media in Swaziland are mostly under government control. With that kind of control why would the rulers want people finding things out for themselves by using the Internet?
So, until we have a government committed to freedom of expression that is willing to allow Swazis to properly access the Internet, UNISWA’s new computers will remain virtually idle.
Sunday, 16 March 2008
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
Swazi police shot an innocent woman bystander in the back as they attacked striking textile workers during a legal picket.
Heavily armed police shot five workers by the end of the unprovoked violence. In total 16 workers and one policeman were hospitalised.
Police fired indiscriminately and some people who were not textile workers were also attacked.
Swaziland’s two newspapers were yesterday (15 March 2008) full of eyewitness accounts to the mayhem created by Swazi police.
Even the Weekend Observer - perhaps the newspaper most loyal to the non-democratic regime in Swaziland - gave detailed accounts of the violence.
In its reports the Weekend Observer described the scene as a ‘war zone’. The newspaper reported the ‘heavy smell of teargas and gunfire’.
The Swazi News likened the scene to something from Iraq. Police were ‘armed to the teeth’, according to the newspaper.
The violence happened after striking workers met to listen to their union leader. After he finished speaking ‘police pounced on the unsuspecting workers and immediately fired teargas canisters without uttering a word,’ according to the Weekend Observer.
The report continued, ‘That marked the beginning of complete mayhem as the police assaulted every worker on sight with batons.’
The Weekend Observer quoted a woman eyewitness saying,
‘We ran helter-skelter as the police had a field day on us. Some workers sought shelter in nearby shops but were removed and further assaulted. I have never seen such brutality in my life.
‘They were heavily armed and were scattered all over the industrial area.’
The eyewitness continued, ‘They were literally running after us, obviously enjoying what they were doing.’
The Swazi News reported that a women vendor who was not involved in the strike was shot in the back. The Swazi News reported the woman saying, ‘I just saw a police car speeding towards us and while it was moving I was shot in the back. I just don’t know why they shot me when I am just a vendor selling ice blocks, biscuits and fish.’
The Weekend Observer found the vendor at hospital with a bullet lodged in her back.
The Weekend Observer interviewed a man who said police deliberately fired into his knee. The newspaper quoted him saying,
‘They [the police] came and started assaulting us and asked why we were not at work. One officer pulled out a gun and fired at my knee. I fell down and several of them started assaulting me with batons all over the body, with blood oozing from the gunshot wound.’
This was not the first unprovoked attack by police during the current textile workers’ strike, which is over pay and has lasted two weeks so far. In a previous incident police attacked a woman who was eight months pregnant and hit her all over her body with batons.
The Weekend Observer put several reports of the violence on its website.
To see the reports click
here
here
here
here
here
See also
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Heavily armed police shot five workers by the end of the unprovoked violence. In total 16 workers and one policeman were hospitalised.
Police fired indiscriminately and some people who were not textile workers were also attacked.
Swaziland’s two newspapers were yesterday (15 March 2008) full of eyewitness accounts to the mayhem created by Swazi police.
Even the Weekend Observer - perhaps the newspaper most loyal to the non-democratic regime in Swaziland - gave detailed accounts of the violence.
In its reports the Weekend Observer described the scene as a ‘war zone’. The newspaper reported the ‘heavy smell of teargas and gunfire’.
The Swazi News likened the scene to something from Iraq. Police were ‘armed to the teeth’, according to the newspaper.
The violence happened after striking workers met to listen to their union leader. After he finished speaking ‘police pounced on the unsuspecting workers and immediately fired teargas canisters without uttering a word,’ according to the Weekend Observer.
The report continued, ‘That marked the beginning of complete mayhem as the police assaulted every worker on sight with batons.’
The Weekend Observer quoted a woman eyewitness saying,
‘We ran helter-skelter as the police had a field day on us. Some workers sought shelter in nearby shops but were removed and further assaulted. I have never seen such brutality in my life.
‘They were heavily armed and were scattered all over the industrial area.’
The eyewitness continued, ‘They were literally running after us, obviously enjoying what they were doing.’
The Swazi News reported that a women vendor who was not involved in the strike was shot in the back. The Swazi News reported the woman saying, ‘I just saw a police car speeding towards us and while it was moving I was shot in the back. I just don’t know why they shot me when I am just a vendor selling ice blocks, biscuits and fish.’
The Weekend Observer found the vendor at hospital with a bullet lodged in her back.
The Weekend Observer interviewed a man who said police deliberately fired into his knee. The newspaper quoted him saying,
‘They [the police] came and started assaulting us and asked why we were not at work. One officer pulled out a gun and fired at my knee. I fell down and several of them started assaulting me with batons all over the body, with blood oozing from the gunshot wound.’
This was not the first unprovoked attack by police during the current textile workers’ strike, which is over pay and has lasted two weeks so far. In a previous incident police attacked a woman who was eight months pregnant and hit her all over her body with batons.
The Weekend Observer put several reports of the violence on its website.
To see the reports click
here
here
here
here
here
See also
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Friday, 14 March 2008
SWAZI JOURNALISTS CAN’T ADD UP
Textile factory owners in Swaziland have been able to mislead the public over the effects of the national strike in their industry because journalists are no good at arithmetic.
The Swaziland Textile Exporters Association (STEA) put out a press release saying that the 16,000 striking workers would have lost over E2 million (about 290,000 US Dollars) in wages over the first three days of the strike that hit Swaziland last week.
The Times of Swaziland diligently copied the press release into its newspaper last Thursday (6 March 2008) and in typical fashion, journalists asked no questions and sought no other comment on the claim, so the STEA statement became accepted.
The point of the statement was to make the striking workers believe they were going to face hardship unless they returned to work immediately.
This sentence from the Times’ report gives the game away.
‘In their press statement, the STEA warns that the strike would have a great impact on the livelihood of workers if the strike continued as they were not going to be able to cater for their basic necessities.’
Let’s leave aside the fact that the textile workers cannot afford ‘basic necessities’ on the pay they are getting, which is why they are on strike.
My main concern is that no journalist did the arithmetic. If someone picked up a pocket calculator they could do the sums.
Here we go.
There are 16,000 workers who have ‘lost’ E2 million in pay over three days. This means that one worker has lost E125 (about 20 US Dollars) over three days or put another way E41.66 per day. (It works out at E416 per fortnight).
The E41.66 per day exposes the STEA and demonstrates that the strikers were right all along and they are paid appalling wages.
Had the journalists been alert, they could have exposed the STEA for the exploiters that they are.
See also
SWAZILAND WORKERS ‘NEAR STARVING’
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
The Swaziland Textile Exporters Association (STEA) put out a press release saying that the 16,000 striking workers would have lost over E2 million (about 290,000 US Dollars) in wages over the first three days of the strike that hit Swaziland last week.
The Times of Swaziland diligently copied the press release into its newspaper last Thursday (6 March 2008) and in typical fashion, journalists asked no questions and sought no other comment on the claim, so the STEA statement became accepted.
The point of the statement was to make the striking workers believe they were going to face hardship unless they returned to work immediately.
This sentence from the Times’ report gives the game away.
‘In their press statement, the STEA warns that the strike would have a great impact on the livelihood of workers if the strike continued as they were not going to be able to cater for their basic necessities.’
Let’s leave aside the fact that the textile workers cannot afford ‘basic necessities’ on the pay they are getting, which is why they are on strike.
My main concern is that no journalist did the arithmetic. If someone picked up a pocket calculator they could do the sums.
Here we go.
There are 16,000 workers who have ‘lost’ E2 million in pay over three days. This means that one worker has lost E125 (about 20 US Dollars) over three days or put another way E41.66 per day. (It works out at E416 per fortnight).
The E41.66 per day exposes the STEA and demonstrates that the strikers were right all along and they are paid appalling wages.
Had the journalists been alert, they could have exposed the STEA for the exploiters that they are.
See also
SWAZILAND WORKERS ‘NEAR STARVING’
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
Thursday, 13 March 2008
WOMEN IN THE MEDIA
Frederico Links, a journalist in Namibia, southern Africa, has written about the role of women in journalism in that country. In a report for the Namibian newspaper, Links says that it is a fact ‘that while women make up the majority of applications and entries to journalism schools and departments, the female voice in general remains underrepresented and skewed towards stereotyping in media coverage’.
When I read Links’ article I was struck by how similar Swaziland is in regard to this matter. Everything Links says about Namibia applies to Swaziland.
See for yourself. The report was circulated by AllAfrica.Com and if you want to see the original article click here
Namibia: Women in the Media And the Gender Issue
7 March 2008
Frederico Links, Windhoek
"Women generally don't last long in this profession. They don't have the stomach for it," an editor friend once told me while discussing why female journalists tended to go for coverage of lighter issues.
The issue of women in the media, especially in journalism, has become something of a political issue and for years now media organisations have been bombarded with the messages of gender mainstreaming and gender sensitivity.
At issue is the fact that while women make up the majority of applications and entries to journalism schools and departments, the female voice in general remains underrepresented and skewed towards stereotyping in media coverage.
But while gender messages are commendable, and very necessary, they have largely lost meaning and effectiveness.
The issue has become little more than a fashionably profitable catchphrase for organisations selling themselves as diehard fighters in the cause for newsroom change and equality.
A large amount of mostly donor money is invested in this decidedly piecemeal approach to women's emancipation and empowerment in the media sector.
The thing that always strikes me about the messages of the gender-mainstreaming project is that some crucial element is always missing.
There is always a fundamentality that is not being addressed.
The question is where we are missing the mark - for we are missing the mark - on this issue.
Having been a journalism student in classrooms filled with female students and having worked with female journalists, I have come to realise that the issue is much more complex than the solutions put forward.
What the gender messages fail to fully appreciate is the extent of the denial of the voice of the girl-child.
Women in this part of the world, if not everywhere else as well, are the products of paternalistic societies.
In short, the male voice is always the dominant and authoritative voice and from birth the girl-child is schooled to unquestioningly respect this authority.
The little girl is never encouraged to have passionate opinions about issues, but rather to conform to apportioned gender roles in society.
She is not encouraged to speak or to make herself heard.
The pressure to conform to accepted gender roles and the censoring of her own voice, compounded by years of poor education, manifest themselves in low confidence levels in the young woman, especially the young black woman.
By the time she steps into the journalism classroom or newsroom, submissiveness has been internalised.
As a student and journalist she shies away from critically confronting the male-dominated structures of society and eventually leaves the profession to take up a much more 'safe' position in the corporate sector.
And thus her silencing is complete.
The odds are against her overcoming this situation in her lifetime.
Against this background workshopping for change in the newsroom will always only lead to cosmetic change.
That is not to say that campaigning for change should not be done, but rather that hoping for revolution at this late stage is something of a pipe-dream.
The fact is that change has to occur somewhere else.
With the theme of this year's Women's Day being 'Investing in women and girls', and in the media context 'Women and girls in the media', the question has to be asked: Where and what do we invest? The media sector, and journalism specifically, is supposed to play the role of agenda-setter and agent for change in society, but cannot realistically be expected to patiently nurture and unfurl the inherent potential of the female journalistic voice.
There are too many other pressures demanding prioritisation.
And this is something the gender and media campaigners do not seem to understand.
These campaigns always seem to have a suddenness to them that demands an immediate reaction, something that is virtually impossible.
And rather than speaking to the media organisation and journalist, they tend to speak at them, in an accusatory tone.
Most media organisations and journalists are probably aware of the gender dynamics at play in society and the newsroom and are probably receptive to the messages of campaigners.
However, most are probably also realistic enough to know that there is very little, aside from spreading the message that change is necessary, that they can do.
Most media organisations spend a lot in employing, nurturing and encouraging female talent.
A real case can also be made for the media doing more.
However, the investment is there, but there is only so much that can be done at any level.
Fighting the media organisation and journalism profession about this issue is the right fight at the wrong place.
Without negating media influence and responsibility on this issue, and with all due respect, the fact is that the real fight, or investment, has to take place somewhere else in order for us to produce confident and courageous female journalists, something which at present is the exception rather than the rule.
See also
SWAZI PRESS EXCLUDES MOST WOMEN
TOUGH FOR WOMEN JOURNALISTS
When I read Links’ article I was struck by how similar Swaziland is in regard to this matter. Everything Links says about Namibia applies to Swaziland.
See for yourself. The report was circulated by AllAfrica.Com and if you want to see the original article click here
Namibia: Women in the Media And the Gender Issue
7 March 2008
Frederico Links, Windhoek
"Women generally don't last long in this profession. They don't have the stomach for it," an editor friend once told me while discussing why female journalists tended to go for coverage of lighter issues.
The issue of women in the media, especially in journalism, has become something of a political issue and for years now media organisations have been bombarded with the messages of gender mainstreaming and gender sensitivity.
At issue is the fact that while women make up the majority of applications and entries to journalism schools and departments, the female voice in general remains underrepresented and skewed towards stereotyping in media coverage.
But while gender messages are commendable, and very necessary, they have largely lost meaning and effectiveness.
The issue has become little more than a fashionably profitable catchphrase for organisations selling themselves as diehard fighters in the cause for newsroom change and equality.
A large amount of mostly donor money is invested in this decidedly piecemeal approach to women's emancipation and empowerment in the media sector.
The thing that always strikes me about the messages of the gender-mainstreaming project is that some crucial element is always missing.
There is always a fundamentality that is not being addressed.
The question is where we are missing the mark - for we are missing the mark - on this issue.
Having been a journalism student in classrooms filled with female students and having worked with female journalists, I have come to realise that the issue is much more complex than the solutions put forward.
What the gender messages fail to fully appreciate is the extent of the denial of the voice of the girl-child.
Women in this part of the world, if not everywhere else as well, are the products of paternalistic societies.
In short, the male voice is always the dominant and authoritative voice and from birth the girl-child is schooled to unquestioningly respect this authority.
The little girl is never encouraged to have passionate opinions about issues, but rather to conform to apportioned gender roles in society.
She is not encouraged to speak or to make herself heard.
The pressure to conform to accepted gender roles and the censoring of her own voice, compounded by years of poor education, manifest themselves in low confidence levels in the young woman, especially the young black woman.
By the time she steps into the journalism classroom or newsroom, submissiveness has been internalised.
As a student and journalist she shies away from critically confronting the male-dominated structures of society and eventually leaves the profession to take up a much more 'safe' position in the corporate sector.
And thus her silencing is complete.
The odds are against her overcoming this situation in her lifetime.
Against this background workshopping for change in the newsroom will always only lead to cosmetic change.
That is not to say that campaigning for change should not be done, but rather that hoping for revolution at this late stage is something of a pipe-dream.
The fact is that change has to occur somewhere else.
With the theme of this year's Women's Day being 'Investing in women and girls', and in the media context 'Women and girls in the media', the question has to be asked: Where and what do we invest? The media sector, and journalism specifically, is supposed to play the role of agenda-setter and agent for change in society, but cannot realistically be expected to patiently nurture and unfurl the inherent potential of the female journalistic voice.
There are too many other pressures demanding prioritisation.
And this is something the gender and media campaigners do not seem to understand.
These campaigns always seem to have a suddenness to them that demands an immediate reaction, something that is virtually impossible.
And rather than speaking to the media organisation and journalist, they tend to speak at them, in an accusatory tone.
Most media organisations and journalists are probably aware of the gender dynamics at play in society and the newsroom and are probably receptive to the messages of campaigners.
However, most are probably also realistic enough to know that there is very little, aside from spreading the message that change is necessary, that they can do.
Most media organisations spend a lot in employing, nurturing and encouraging female talent.
A real case can also be made for the media doing more.
However, the investment is there, but there is only so much that can be done at any level.
Fighting the media organisation and journalism profession about this issue is the right fight at the wrong place.
Without negating media influence and responsibility on this issue, and with all due respect, the fact is that the real fight, or investment, has to take place somewhere else in order for us to produce confident and courageous female journalists, something which at present is the exception rather than the rule.
See also
SWAZI PRESS EXCLUDES MOST WOMEN
TOUGH FOR WOMEN JOURNALISTS
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
SHORT HISTORY OF ‘TIMES OF SWAZILAND’
Douglas Loffler, a man referred to as ‘the father of modern Swazi journalism’ by his admirers has died aged 70.
A memorial service for him was held last Friday (7 March 2008).
There is very little written or easily available about the history of media in Swaziland, so Loffler’s death gives us an opportunity to try to piece together at least some of the more recent history.
Loffler owned the group of newspapers that publishes the Times of Swaziland (published Monday to Friday) and its companion papers the Swazi News (Saturday) and the Times Sunday.
These extracts from an obituary published in the Times on 6 March 2008 fill in some of the details.
‘Douglas Loffler, aged 70, died on 25 February 2008 in Cape Town of heart failure.
‘He was managing director of the Times of Swaziland for over 30 years and has been referred to as the father of modern Swazi journalism.
‘When Douglas bought the Times of Swaziland from the Argus Group in 1975 it was a thin weekly paper. Over the years he developed the paper, transforming t into a daily appear and later bringing out weekend editions – the Swazi News and [the Times Sunday]. He was determined to publish a vernacular edition of the paper and added Tikhatsi and Tikhatsi Ngelisontfo (a siSwati version of the Times Sunday) to the stable of Times publications.
‘Douglas’ career in the newspaper industry started with him selling advertising for Thompson Newspapers in England. Hs employers appointed him to sell advertising for the African Daily News in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and he headed off for Africa. When his publication was banned by the Rhodesian government he moved to Malawi where he worked as advertising manager of the Malawi News.
‘In 1971 Douglas and his family moved to Swaziland where he established a monthly business magazine, Business in Swaziland. When the Times of Swaziland was put up for sale several years later he grasped the opportunity.
‘At the time the paper had one employee, one chair and one desk. When he died, the Times of Swaziland employed over 140 people.
‘Douglas had every faith in Swazis being able to run their own affairs but was not about to keep quiet when people took advantage of their powerful positions to do wrong. He took a lot of flak for this, and despite the personal cost to his health, was always proud that he stood up for the Swazi people.’
See also
HISTORY OF SWAZI LANGUAGE PRESS
A memorial service for him was held last Friday (7 March 2008).
There is very little written or easily available about the history of media in Swaziland, so Loffler’s death gives us an opportunity to try to piece together at least some of the more recent history.
Loffler owned the group of newspapers that publishes the Times of Swaziland (published Monday to Friday) and its companion papers the Swazi News (Saturday) and the Times Sunday.
These extracts from an obituary published in the Times on 6 March 2008 fill in some of the details.
‘Douglas Loffler, aged 70, died on 25 February 2008 in Cape Town of heart failure.
‘He was managing director of the Times of Swaziland for over 30 years and has been referred to as the father of modern Swazi journalism.
‘When Douglas bought the Times of Swaziland from the Argus Group in 1975 it was a thin weekly paper. Over the years he developed the paper, transforming t into a daily appear and later bringing out weekend editions – the Swazi News and [the Times Sunday]. He was determined to publish a vernacular edition of the paper and added Tikhatsi and Tikhatsi Ngelisontfo (a siSwati version of the Times Sunday) to the stable of Times publications.
‘Douglas’ career in the newspaper industry started with him selling advertising for Thompson Newspapers in England. Hs employers appointed him to sell advertising for the African Daily News in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and he headed off for Africa. When his publication was banned by the Rhodesian government he moved to Malawi where he worked as advertising manager of the Malawi News.
‘In 1971 Douglas and his family moved to Swaziland where he established a monthly business magazine, Business in Swaziland. When the Times of Swaziland was put up for sale several years later he grasped the opportunity.
‘At the time the paper had one employee, one chair and one desk. When he died, the Times of Swaziland employed over 140 people.
‘Douglas had every faith in Swazis being able to run their own affairs but was not about to keep quiet when people took advantage of their powerful positions to do wrong. He took a lot of flak for this, and despite the personal cost to his health, was always proud that he stood up for the Swazi people.’
See also
HISTORY OF SWAZI LANGUAGE PRESS
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
SWAZI PRESS ATTACK ELECTION BOARD
Swazi newspapers have attacked the appointment of an electrician to be chair of the Swaziland Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), the body that will oversee the national election later this year.
One newspaper editor has gone so far as to speculate that this is a deliberate ploy to rig the election.
The anger revolves around the appointment of the five-member EBC, which is to be headed by Chief Gija Dlamini, who has been employed as an electrician for 20 years at the Swaziland Water Services Commission.
The appointment of Chief Gija and the rest of the EBC, who also do not seem to be qualified for the job, caused outrage in the Swazi Press.
When the news broke in newspapers on Friday (7 March 2008) both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer drew readers’ attention to the new Swazi Constitution which states that ‘the chairperson, deputy chairperson and other members of the commission shall possess the relevant qualifications of a judge of the superior courts or be persons of high moral character, proven integrity, relevant experience and demonstrable competence in the conduct of public affairs.’
According to the Times on Friday, when questioned by journalists about Gila’s qualifications, Prince David, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, said King Mswati III had used ‘the second part which starts with “or” when appointing the chief’.
The condemnation of the appointments to the EBC was swift. The following day Thulani Thwala, editor of the Swazi News, writing in his own newspaper (8 March 2008) said none of the five members were really properly qualified for the job.
Thwala said that Gila ‘has never been a judge and from the look of things he is nowhere near being a judge’ he was appointed because ‘he is a hard-core traditionalist, who heeds all royal command’.
Thwala said that the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 was being ignored. He wrote, ‘Was the constitution drafted in good faith or was it purely availed for the country to appease the international community for us to continue getting donations we so much adore?’
Thwala wrote, ‘My worry is whether the EBC is ready to reward us with sound MPs or its duty would be to rig the elections.’
The Weekend Observer (8 March 2008) interviewed civic society organisations and found they were ‘worried about the people who were appointed into the commission’. Members of the EBC keep the job for 12 years.
In its report the Weekend Observer noted, ‘In the event the commissioners blunder because of lack of political experience the Judicial Service Commission will have to take the blame for ignoring high, learned and experienced Swazis.’
A spokesperson for the Swaziland National Association of Teachers told the Weekend Observer the commissioners ‘lacked experience at political and leadership level’.
The Lawyers for Human Rights said Gija was unqualified for the job.
‘His job requires a high level of knowledge in politics, constitutional law and international relations. His job is not about morals per se,’ the Weekend Observer quoted a spokesman saying.
The spokesman added that there were many Swazis who were qualified for the job.
The Times Sunday (9 March 2008) in an editorial said the nation was ‘clueless’ as to how the members of the EBC were selected. The process of selection had not been transparent, the newspaper said.
The Times Sunday also reported the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), which said the way in which the members were selected ‘shows the executive’s complete disregard for the principles of parliamentary supremacy’.
SCCCO noted ‘with extreme concern the utter disregard for both the spirit and the nature of the Swazi constitution in the appointment of members of the EBC’.
SCCCO wants a judicial review of the way the members were selected and are lobbying both Swazi and international civic organisations to its cause.
The Times Sunday quoted SCCCO saying, ‘We will not stand idly by and watch our votes be rendered useless by a system that regards Parliament and elections as mere window-dressing to appease other states and give the impression of democracy to satisfy international donors.’
SCCCO continued, ‘Our human rights will not be respected, transparency and accountability will continue to be foreign concepts and our political freedom to be governed as we choose will remain far off dreams.’
The date for the nation election has not been set but it is widely expected to be sometime in October or November 2008. That means there is not much time to get everything ready in time. There needs to be widespread voter education ahead of the polls to ensure that all people in Swaziland know their rights and obligations at election time.
The row over the appointment of the EBC needs to be resolved quickly. I support the Swaziland press in its attempts to ensure that the EBC works in line with its constitutional obligations. At the moment this is not the case.
I hope that civic organisations within and outside of Swaziland can unite to protest these appointments.
Here is a fine chance for the Swazi independent media to stand up for the people of Swaziland and stand up for democracy.
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 ELECTION ‘MAY NOT BE FAIR’
One newspaper editor has gone so far as to speculate that this is a deliberate ploy to rig the election.
The anger revolves around the appointment of the five-member EBC, which is to be headed by Chief Gija Dlamini, who has been employed as an electrician for 20 years at the Swaziland Water Services Commission.
The appointment of Chief Gija and the rest of the EBC, who also do not seem to be qualified for the job, caused outrage in the Swazi Press.
When the news broke in newspapers on Friday (7 March 2008) both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer drew readers’ attention to the new Swazi Constitution which states that ‘the chairperson, deputy chairperson and other members of the commission shall possess the relevant qualifications of a judge of the superior courts or be persons of high moral character, proven integrity, relevant experience and demonstrable competence in the conduct of public affairs.’
According to the Times on Friday, when questioned by journalists about Gila’s qualifications, Prince David, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, said King Mswati III had used ‘the second part which starts with “or” when appointing the chief’.
The condemnation of the appointments to the EBC was swift. The following day Thulani Thwala, editor of the Swazi News, writing in his own newspaper (8 March 2008) said none of the five members were really properly qualified for the job.
Thwala said that Gila ‘has never been a judge and from the look of things he is nowhere near being a judge’ he was appointed because ‘he is a hard-core traditionalist, who heeds all royal command’.
Thwala said that the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 was being ignored. He wrote, ‘Was the constitution drafted in good faith or was it purely availed for the country to appease the international community for us to continue getting donations we so much adore?’
Thwala wrote, ‘My worry is whether the EBC is ready to reward us with sound MPs or its duty would be to rig the elections.’
The Weekend Observer (8 March 2008) interviewed civic society organisations and found they were ‘worried about the people who were appointed into the commission’. Members of the EBC keep the job for 12 years.
In its report the Weekend Observer noted, ‘In the event the commissioners blunder because of lack of political experience the Judicial Service Commission will have to take the blame for ignoring high, learned and experienced Swazis.’
A spokesperson for the Swaziland National Association of Teachers told the Weekend Observer the commissioners ‘lacked experience at political and leadership level’.
The Lawyers for Human Rights said Gija was unqualified for the job.
‘His job requires a high level of knowledge in politics, constitutional law and international relations. His job is not about morals per se,’ the Weekend Observer quoted a spokesman saying.
The spokesman added that there were many Swazis who were qualified for the job.
The Times Sunday (9 March 2008) in an editorial said the nation was ‘clueless’ as to how the members of the EBC were selected. The process of selection had not been transparent, the newspaper said.
The Times Sunday also reported the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), which said the way in which the members were selected ‘shows the executive’s complete disregard for the principles of parliamentary supremacy’.
SCCCO noted ‘with extreme concern the utter disregard for both the spirit and the nature of the Swazi constitution in the appointment of members of the EBC’.
SCCCO wants a judicial review of the way the members were selected and are lobbying both Swazi and international civic organisations to its cause.
The Times Sunday quoted SCCCO saying, ‘We will not stand idly by and watch our votes be rendered useless by a system that regards Parliament and elections as mere window-dressing to appease other states and give the impression of democracy to satisfy international donors.’
SCCCO continued, ‘Our human rights will not be respected, transparency and accountability will continue to be foreign concepts and our political freedom to be governed as we choose will remain far off dreams.’
The date for the nation election has not been set but it is widely expected to be sometime in October or November 2008. That means there is not much time to get everything ready in time. There needs to be widespread voter education ahead of the polls to ensure that all people in Swaziland know their rights and obligations at election time.
The row over the appointment of the EBC needs to be resolved quickly. I support the Swaziland press in its attempts to ensure that the EBC works in line with its constitutional obligations. At the moment this is not the case.
I hope that civic organisations within and outside of Swaziland can unite to protest these appointments.
Here is a fine chance for the Swazi independent media to stand up for the people of Swaziland and stand up for democracy.
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 ELECTION ‘MAY NOT BE FAIR’
ADVERTS FOR FAKE SWAZI NURSES
News that ‘fake’ nurses are operating in Swaziland raises questions about how advertisers in the kingdom are able to trick people.
The Swaziland Nurses Association (SNA) wants the Ministry of Health to set up a body to screen the content of adverts to make sure they are truthful.
The Times of Swaziland reported on Wednesday (5 March 2008) that the move from SNA follows the ‘mushrooming of clinics which advertise themselves in the media claiming they have medicine and herbs that cure HIV AIDS’.
SNA believes peoples’ lives are in danger as a result of advertisers who claim to be nurses but they are not.
The type of advertising the SNA complains of is not unusual in Swaziland. Unlike in other countries, such as neighbouring South Africa, there is no formal organisation in existence to oversee the quality of advertising and to issue code of regulations to advertisers. These codes help to ensure that misleading adverts do not get to see the light of day.
The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASASA) issues codes of conduct on all types of advertising. For example, an advertisement from a nurse claiming that drugs would ‘cure HIV AIDS’ would contravene a code that states ‘Advertising shall not contain improper, alarming or misleading claims of a recovery.’
Many adverts that you see every day of the week in Swaziland would not be allowed in South Africa.
As an example, in the same edition of the Times that carried the report from SNA, there was a large advert for a product called Oto ‘Super Powerful Man Tablets’.
Part of the advert has the following lines
Do you suffer from
- Low Sexual Drive
- Weak Erection
- Premature ejaculation.
It then offers ‘Be effective for 48 hours’ before going on to claim
- Safe and free of side effects
- Can be used by diabetics and
- People with high blood pressure.
‘The number one natural product for Sexual Vitality’
The advert breaks a number of ASASA regulations, including: ‘Advertising shall not contain improper, alarming or misleading claims of a recovery’ and ‘Advertising shall not claim, or imply, that a product’s effects are guaranteed.’
The call from SNA for some body to oversee advertising is one that deserves support. The advertising industry is very small in Swaziland because – frankly – people in the kingdom are so poor that they cannot afford the goods and services that advertisers want to sell to them.
It also deserves support because many people do not lead sophisticated lives and with relatively little formal education they do not have inquiring minds and are likely to take advertisers’ claims at face value.
There is also more than a hint of desperation involved too. Some people with HIV might desperately want a ‘cure’ and be willing to believe anything an unscrupulous advertiser might tell them.
And of course, who wouldn’t want to be ‘Super Powerful Man’ when it came to the Sexual Vitality Department?
Friday, 7 March 2008
SWAZI STRIKE GOES GLOBAL
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)