Workers in Swaziland are among the poorest in southern Africa. And this makes them wide open to exploitation by bosses seeking to drive down wages.
The plight of the Swazi worker has come to light with the news that textile factories in neighbouring South Africa might close down and move some of their business to Swaziland – because factory owners can get away with paying Swazis lower wages than South Africans.
Bosses are threatening workers in South Africa that they will close their factories and move to Swaziland if that country’s Bargaining Council goes ahead with its threat to force factories to pay the country’s minimum wage to textile workers.
More than 380 registered clothing factories, employing about 15,000 workers, do not pay minimum wages and are facing shut-down. All factories will have to pay 70 percent of minimum wages by the end of March 2011, and the full amount by April 2012. Should these targets not be met, the factories will be closed down.
Textile factories in Swaziland – many of them owned by Taiwanese companies – are notorious for the poor pay and conditions they inflict on their workers. By paying what amounts to near-slave wages, the companies are able to boost profits and maintain their share of the international cheap textile market.
It is believed that many workers in textile factories at present in Swaziland do not receive even the kingdom’s minimum wage that varies between E420 (US$57) a month for an unskilled workerand E600 (US $81) a month for a skilled worker.
The US State Department, in its 2009 Country Report [on Swaziland] on Human Rights said, ‘These minimum wages did not provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family. Migrant workers were not covered under minimum wage laws. Wage arrears, particularly in the garment industry, were a problem. The minimum wage laws did not apply to the informal sector, where most workers were employed.’
I have reported previously that Swaziland’s textile workers are so poorly paid that some exist close to ‘starvation’.
Women workers get paid much less than the minimum wage. I reported in January 2010 about the women workers in Matsanjeni who typically earned E160 a month and were forced to turn to prostitution to survive.
Some women textile workers reported they earned E5.50 per hour (about 85 US cents) and had to live six to a room and three to a bed to get by. They tried to share food as the cheapest meal for one person costs E10 and a piece of fruit costs E1.
In September 2008, police fired teargas and rubber bullets at textile workers at Zheng Yong Garment Factory who were peacefully demanding that they be paid holiday money that was rightfully owed to them.
In South Africa, the Industry National Bargaining Council minimum wage for a Millinery General Worker engaged in manufacturing millinery is set at E2,405.57 per month (nearly six times the minimum rate for an unskilled worker in Swaziland).
In Swaziland, Phiwayinkhosi Ginindza, the Swaziland Investments Promotion Authority (SIPA) Chief Executive, said the closure of factories in South Africa would come as an advantage to the kingdom in terms of job creation.
He told the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect ownedand edited by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, Swaziland couldn’t take all 380 of the South African factories, because they would need infrastructure such as factory shells.
‘380 is a very large number and the country cannot accommodate such a number. We can accommodate those that we can,’ he said.
His nomination for the honour, considered by some to be ‘the world’s most prestigious award’, breaks the rules of the organisers, the World Citizen Awards (WCA).
WCA, which intends to make the award on Saturday (2 October 2010) in the Bahamas, states that only people who are ‘the most brilliant examples of those working toward the attainment of peace and respect for human life and dignity’ are eligible for the honour.
WCA claims that its mission is to ‘champion human rights and maintain governance, democracy, equality, international peace and goodwill’.
To support this work WCA gives 15 awards each year to people ‘who have proven themselves to be brilliant exemplars of society, as well as contributors to peace and human rights’.
It says it receives more than 500 proposals each year and a committee of 13 members selects the winners.
But it’s all gone horribly wrong for the WCA.
It says very clearly that, ‘All prospective awardees must be unanimously endorsed by their organizations who know and attest that the awardees are worthy of such. Nominations related to any particular member of the organization shall not be entertained unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that such distinction is beyond question.’
It doesn’t need a massive investigation to see that Barnabas Dlamini is no ‘champion’ of human rights. In fact, he is the opposite. He has a long history as an enemy of freedom, human rights and civil liberties. He has no ‘distinction’ in human rights and does not deserve the award.
Only this month he said that he wanted to use ‘sipakatane’ (otherwise known as ‘bastinado’,a form of torture that involves flogging the bare soles of a person’s feet with a spiked wooden or metal implement to temporarily or permanently cripple them) on people who campaigned against his government.
Earlier this year Amnesty International, Freedom House and the US State Department separately attested to the human rights violations that are taking place in Swaziland under Dlamini’s regime.
The US State Department reported, ‘Human rights problems included inability of citizens to change their government; extrajudicial killings by security forces; mob killings; police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force on detainees; police impunity; arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; arbitrary interference with privacy and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech and press and harassment of journalists; restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association, and movement; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; discrimination and violence against women; child abuse; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual community; discrimination against mixed-race and white citizens; harassment of labor leaders; restrictions on worker rights; and child labor.’
Once news broke of the intention to give Dlamini an award people who know the truth have been protesting to WCA, detailing his crimes against human rights.
The organisation cannot claim it doesn’t know that Dlamini is not worthy of the distinction.
There is still time for WCA to save a shred of its reputation by withdrawing the offer of the award and telling Dlamini he is not wanted in the Bahamas.
Monday (3 May 2010) is the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day where we stop and think about the state of the media in the world today.
This seems to me to be a good time to reflect on the past year or so in Swaziland. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) will soon be issuing its annual report on the lack of media freedom in Swaziland.
It will be the same old story of censorship, harassment and fear.
Here in advance of the MISA report, is an extract from the United States State Department report on human rights in Swaziland that was issued in March 2010.
I reproduce here the section on Freedom of Speech and Press ... every last depressing word.
The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but the king may waive these rights at his discretion, and the government restricted these rights during the year. Although no law bans criticism of the monarchy, the prime minister and other officials warned journalists that publishing such criticism could be construed as an act of sedition or treason, and media organizations were threatened with closure for criticizing the monarchy. The law empowers the government to ban publications if they are deemed "prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health." Most journalists practiced self-censorship.
The king may suspend the constitutional right to free expression at his discretion, and the government severely restricted freedom of expression, especially regarding political issues or the royal family. Individuals--and family members of individuals--who criticized the monarchy risked exclusion from the traditional regiments (chiefdom-based groupings of Swazi males dedicated to serving the king) patronage system that distributed scholarships, land, and other benefits. Traditional chiefs were obliged to punish offenders when matters were brought to their attention. During the year the prime minister warned journalists against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious.
During the year the foreign minister criticized foreign diplomats for speaking publicly about political matters and warned that they were not to interfere in the internal affairs of the country.
There were two daily newspapers, the independent Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, which was owned by the king's investment company, Tibiyo Taka Ngwane. Both newspapers criticized government corruption and inefficiency but generally avoided criticizing the royal family. The Ministry of Public Service and Information periodically published the Swaziland Today newspaper. Private companies and church groups owned several newsletters and magazines.
In November 2008 the attorney general warned that journalists who criticized the government could be viewed as supporting terrorists and arrested under the Suppression of Terrorism Act (see section 2.b.). Journalists continued to be threatened, harassed, and assaulted during the year.
For example, on January 12, after being pressured by police and government authorities, former cabinet minister and Times of Swaziland columnist Mfomfo Nkambule publicly apologized to the king for a series of articles that criticized the monarchy. Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini had threatened to charge Mfomfo Nkambule and other media commentators under the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act. Nkambule, who at one point had been ordered to buy between four and six cows as a fine to appease the king, reported in his newspaper column that failure to pay the fine could result in the eviction of his family from their homestead. On April 27, the Times of Swaziland stopped publishing Nkambule's articles.
Journalists were called to the offices of the king, prime minister, and senate subcommittee for their reporting on political events or the royal family.
For example, on May 12, a senate subcommittee summoned Times of Swaziland editor Mbongeni Mbingo and other journalists for reporting about a verbal exchange between Senate President Gelane Zwane and Senator Ndileka Dlamini. Senators advised journalists that internal parliamentary discussions were private and raised the possibility of charging journalists with contempt of parliament.
On June 30, at the George Tums Hotel in Manzini, organizers of an HIV/AIDS workshop ejected journalists covering the event after members of parliament (MPs) complained of the press presence. Parliamentarians cited an incident in which an MP was publicly embarrassed after papers headlined his statement that HIV/AIDS patients should be branded on their buttocks.
In August Prime Minister Dlamini reportedly threatened to close media outlets if they reported on an August royal trip abroad; there was no domestic coverage of the event. In August 2008 USDF soldiers assaulted Times of Swaziland journalists who were at the airport to cover the return of nine of the king's wives and their entourage from a lavish shopping spree abroad; soldiers also seized the journalists' cameras.
Journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue particular stories, and many of them complied. For example, freelance journalist and Times of Swaziland columnist Vusi Sibisi reported that he stopped writing after being told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued due to his articles that criticized the government and the monarchy.
Unlike in previous years, defamation laws were not used to restrict the press.
In March 2008 Speaker of the House Guduza, a brother of the king, sued the Times of Swaziland for two million emalangeni ($270,000) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth 17 million emalangeni (approximately $2.3 million). The case had not gone to trial by year's end.
In February 2008 the High Court awarded MP Marwick Khumalo a default judgment of 120,000 emalangeni ($16,200); in July 2007 Khumalo had sued Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the private Nation magazine, for defamation after Makhubu wrote an article accusing Khumalo of corruption. However, on February 22, the High Court granted the Nation magazine an order for stay of execution, and the case remained pending at year's end.
The March 2007 defamation suit filed by MP Maqhawe Mavuso against the Swazi Observer newspaper remained pending at year's end; the Observer had included Mavuso's name in an article about an alleged assault.
There was one government-owned radio station and one independent radio station that broadcast religious programs and public information programs on issues such as HIV/AIDS; however, the government generally restricted media content, especially on government television and radio. There was one privately owned television station; however, the owner's mother was a daughter of the previous king, Sobhuza II, and the station's reporting favored the monarchy. The government-owned Swaziland Television Authority and radio stations were the most influential media in reaching the public, but neither generally broadcast news about antigovernment demonstrations or criticism by "progressives." Government broadcast facilities retransmitted some Voice of America and BBC news programs in their entirety.
Consumers freely purchased and used satellite dishes to receive signals and programming from independent South African and other international service providers.
Internet Freedom
There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Internet cafes existed in larger urban areas, but most citizens lived in rural areas. An estimated 4.1 percent of inhabitants used the Internet, according to International Telecommunication Union statistics for 2008.
I hear that Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, wants to meet with the US Ambassador to Swaziland Earl Irvine to ‘discuss’ a human rights report published last month (March 2010).
They’ll have a lot to discuss, since the comprehensive report on Swaziland from the US State Department tells it like it is.
Dlamini, who was appointed by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, and his cronies like to put it about that Swaziland is a country of peace and harmony, where everyone is happy and the only ‘problems’ in the kingdom are in the imagination of the foreign media.
Here are the first two paragraphs of the report that stretches to more than 11,200 words. It gives you a flavour of the situation. Dlamini will have a lot of explaining to do when he meets up with the ambassador.
Swaziland is an absolute monarchy, and King Mswati III has ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary. The population was approximately 1.02 million, according to the 2007 census. There was a prime minister and a partially elected parliament, but political power remained largely with the king and his traditional advisors, the most influential of whom remained the queen mother. International observers concluded that parliamentary elections held in September 2008 did not meet international standards. The 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act to silence dissent and ban certain political organizations remained in effect. While civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, there were some instances in which elements of the security forces committed abuses
Human rights problems included inability of citizens to change their government; extrajudicial killings by security forces; mob killings; police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force on detainees; police impunity; arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; arbitrary interference with privacy and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech and press and harassment of journalists; restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association, and movement; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; discrimination and violence against women; child abuse; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual community; discrimination against mixed-race and white citizens; harassment of labor leaders; restrictions on worker rights; and child labor.
