National Key Points In A Democratic South Africa.

2013-11-08 10:02

America, Britain and all the countries of the European Union have adopted

and implemented ideas from (mainly) the United States, in that many

governments the world over are increasingly aware of security threats

developing in the form of radical political movements and their terrorist

activities which are threatening key assets, critical to their security and

effective functioning.

The Americans call it "Critical Infrastructure Protection" (CIP), whilst the

European Union calls it the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure

Protection (EPCIP).

Such critical installations should include, but are not limited to:

A country's law making bodies (the legislature and courts), military

installations, prisons, financial institutions, oil production, electricity

generation, transportation, telecommunications, water, health, official

residences of heads of state (e.g. the White House, Buckingham Palace) etc.

As I said earlier, "critical infrastructure" is the operative term here and

it seems to be internationally recognised, nowadays. The DA is trying to

create the impression that they invented the idea, but they actually stole

the name from other countries, ignoring the fact that South Africa has had

it since 1980, in the form of the National Key Points Act. It is most

definitely not a new concept; it just has a different name.

South Africa was way ahead of its time when the National Key Points Act was

enacted, but certain aspects of the act need tweaking or revision. The act

primarily made provision for the recognition of the need for the protection

of various key points within South Africa. Arguing the need for such policy

is not an endorsement of the apartheid era system, but merely taking lessons

learnt and applying them to modern day South Africa. By the same token, many

horrible technologies of World War II were key in the technological

advancements we enjoy today.

In the South Africa of today, whilst we don't yet see terrorist threats, as

experienced in countries like the USA, we cannot afford to ignore the fact

that new movements are growing in this country, with some of them being

radical military styled "political" movements that call for a revolution.

Africa is no stranger to bloody wars and so-called revolutions. It is common

knowledge that some countries on this continent have not seen peace in

decades, all in the name of "revolution". The CAR is a case in point. That

country was taken in a matter of hours!

Key points in South Africa do not all need to be made public, as this poses

a significant threat to the asset and its contents, in the form of

documentation, information or people. If a something is known to be a key

point it becomes a heightened security risk, making it vulnerable to

attack/espionage/clandestine operations. Various assets warrant key point

classification, as stated in the European EPCIP and the US CIP, for example

installations such as the South African Naval Armaments Depot (where

explosives are manufactured), Joint Operations HQ, Special forces training

areas, the official Presidential residences and so on, BUT the residences of

Cabinet Ministers, Premiers MECs and the likes, should remain assets that

are afforded a high level of security. They are certainly not national key

points and neither is Nkandla!

It is vitally important to have an act like this is in any country,

especially a democratic one. The argument isn't about why the act should be

changed, but rather why it is needed.

There have been abuses in the application of the NKP Act, and I do believe

that a repeal of certain aspects and some amendments are necessary. The DA

wanting to push their bill through will lead to that party getting a little

more arrogant and a little more elitist. claims in Parliament this

morning were proven to be wrong, such as previous presidents' private

residences not being National Key Points, which, in fact, they are.

Watching this debate on television, I noticed that there were arguments from

both sides of the house, all very convincing, but I feel the apartheid card

was played too often, making for cheap politicking.

In my opinion, I don't think the DA should be appeased in getting their

private members bill, it will add to the growing arrogance seen time and

time again.

My view is that the Act must be reviewed, and not repealed. This is Africa -

we do not need to borrow laws from the United States or the European Union.

That's the way I see it, any way. Hope you enjoyed the read. Please comment

below and share the link.

Follow me on twitter @tim_meh87

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.
NEXT ON NEWS24X

AB praises selfless skipper

2010-11-21 18:15

Inside News24

 
/News
Traffic Alerts
Traffic
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.
 
English
Afrikaans
isiZulu

Hello 

Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.


Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Settings

Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.




Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.