Reflections on Regrets: Personal Mistakes and Societal Problems

The Siyafana Sonke Action Campaign has intensified its advocacy, calling upon the South African government to promptly address what it characterizes as a worsening humanitarian crisis affecting both documented refugees and migrants within the nation.

Humanitarian Concerns and Refugee Situation

The campaign, which champions the rights and well-being of these vulnerable populations, cautions that refugees are being manipulated in a political context while critical humanitarian issues are largely overlooked. During a press briefing held on Thursday, representatives from the campaign and refugee groups stated that over 400 refugees, including numerous children, have been residing on the pavement outside the Department of Home Affairs office on Che Guevara Road since the middle of May 2026. This encampment followed their flight from threats and acts of violence.

The organization clarified that the refugees are not demanding permanent residences but rather immediate emergency shelter, alongside the development of a secure reintegration procedure. Campaign spokespeople noted that while impoverished and working-class communities in South Africa continue to struggle with unemployment, poverty, and inadequate public services, anti-migrant factions exploit these grievances by targeting refugees and migrants, many of whom possess legal recognition and protection under South African law.

Critique of Political Response

Yeshelen Govender, representing Siyafana Sonke, criticized political figures for allowing electoral politics to influence the government's reaction to the crisis. He asserted that the humanitarian needs of the individuals on the ground are being overshadowed by political maneuvering. Govender argued that refugees have become political scapegoats amid intense political competition, stating that political parties fear losing municipal and governmental control, leading to refugees being used as 'political footballs' while genuine humanitarian problems remain unaddressed.

Govender expressed skepticism regarding official mentions of 'reintegration,' questioning the existence of any substantial program. He challenged the definition of reintegration, pointing out that communities are unprepared to receive them, lacking necessary psychosocial support, safety planning, or protection. He deemed the simple instruction for refugees to return to areas where they were previously attacked as an unfeasible solution.

Scope of Displacement and Needs

He reported a continuous increase in the number of displaced refugees, with some arriving from outside KwaZulu-Natal following similar incidents elsewhere. Govender mentioned receiving refugees from as far as the Eastern Cape and the Free State, all seeking aid from Home Affairs. While civil society has supplied food and basic necessities, he stressed that this cannot resolve the accommodation shortage. He emphasized that the community, comprising over 400 individuals—including children, women, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses—requires shelter, ideally a structure with walls and a roof, but currently, tents would suffice.

Emergency lodging, according to Govender, would enable families to begin recovering from months of trauma, providing them with a chance to move beyond mere survival and make informed decisions about rebuilding their lives. He accused the state of disregarding its specific legal duties concerning refugee protection. Furthermore, Govender urged South Africans to redirect their frustration toward the systemic causes of poverty, such as unemployment, corruption, inequality, and poor service delivery, rather than blaming migrants.

Calls for Government Accountability

Deborah Ewing, another member of Siyafana Sonke, contended that the humanitarian emergency should never have reached its present state, asserting that authorities failed in their constitutional obligation to safeguard vulnerable people. She stated that people should not have been forced out of their communities initially, emphasizing that the police's role is to prevent crime and protect citizens. Despite repeated warnings and interactions with authorities, refugees continued to be displaced without safe alternatives.

Ewing called on both provincial and national governments to assume responsibility by providing emergency shelter until a proper reintegration process can commence, noting that the current situation is unsafe for these families to return to. She added that any lasting resolution necessitates coordinated effort across all governmental tiers.

Personal Accounts and Health Risks

Alim Leung, also affiliated with Siyafana Sonke, estimated that approximately 450 people, including 52 children, were living on the streets. She recounted an instance where a woman gave birth and subsequently returned to the pavement because no other options were available. Leung noted that civil society organizations had found shelters unwilling to guarantee the refugees' safety if the government itself could not assure it. She also alleged that humanitarian groups offering food aid faced unwarranted hurdles.

Raphael Bahebwa, a refugee and leader of the Congolese Solidarity Campaign, stated that those sleeping outside Home Affairs had exhausted all possible avenues. His primary concern is safety, and he appeals to the government to take responsibility since they initiated the verification process and recognized them as refugees. Bahebwa warned that the overcrowding on the pavement poses severe public health risks due to the forced proximity of hundreds of people, suggesting major infections could occur. He concluded by appealing to political leaders to intervene before conditions worsen.

Percy Nhau, a Zimbabwean refugee, insisted that the government must either uphold the protections it granted to recognized refugees or be transparent about its stance. He stressed that these individuals are legally present and that the government accepted the duty to protect them upon granting refugee status. Nhau rejected the notion that refugees are less deserving of protection, stating that this narrative must change.

During a site visit, Nhau detailed the personal impact of displacement, explaining that they are in South Africa because their home countries are unsafe. He highlighted the distinction between refugees and illegal immigrants, confirming their legal status. He added that many refugees ran businesses that employed South Africans, and the looting and closure of these establishments resulted in job losses for local residents, creating a dire situation.

In many regions of Uzbekistan, kindergarten operations have been temporarily suspended due to high temperatures. However, none of the state structures that declare support for gender policy, including the Committee of Women of Uzbekistan, the Gender Commission at the Senate, and the women's wings of political parties, have proposed initiatives to help parents whose children are left without supervision.

Uneven Distribution of Burden

According to data from the National Statistical Committee, women in Uzbekistan spend almost two and a half times more time on unpaid domestic work than men (5.36 hours versus 2.18 hours). This statistic includes both total time and time dedicated to childcare.

The International Labour Organization indicates that women provide 76.2% of all unpaid care work. Furthermore, an informal employment study conducted by UNDP in Uzbekistan in 2025 revealed that family responsibilities, especially those related to caring for children and the elderly, often limit women's ability to work full-time.

Expert Assessment of Consequences

World Bank experts emphasize that childcare responsibilities are one of the key reasons for the reduced participation of women in the country's labor force. Consequently, the temporary closure of kindergartens cannot be viewed solely as a sanitary or climatic measure; its gender implications must be considered, and appropriate support measures must be developed.

The assumption that the closure of kindergartens has a minor impact on women's opportunities is refuted by recent data from the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The study authors demonstrated that the sudden need for childcare is not distributed gender-neutrally. Analyzing cases of temporary closure of educational institutions due to forest fires, researchers found that even short-term and unpredictable disruptions in the care system create additional burdens that primarily fall on mothers.

Impact on the Labor Market

The research shows that the impact of such 'care shocks' affects mothers' employment more severely. Women are more often forced to reduce working hours, take leave, or cease working altogether, while changes in men's employment are much less pronounced. Although the study is based on U.S. data, it demonstrates a general trend: when organized childcare suddenly becomes unavailable, women are most often forced to take on additional responsibilities, which limits their professional opportunities.

Thus, although the closure of kindergartens during heatwaves is necessary to protect children's health, the lack of accompanying support measures leads to a redistribution of care responsibilities, effectively placing climate risks on families with young children. This means that climate adaptation in education without social adaptation for families exacerbates existing gender inequality in the distribution of unpaid labor.

Recommendations for Improvement

Since women in Uzbekistan perform the majority of unpaid care work, such decisions disproportionately affect working mothers, increasing the likelihood of forced leave, reduced working hours, and exclusion of women from paid employment. Therefore, any short-term disruptions in the care system require gender-sensitive support measures.

Ways to Solve the Problem

To improve the situation, it is proposed to introduce a special paid parental leave during such situations, legally enshrining the right of one parent to such leave when kindergartens are forced to close due to natural disasters. Flexible working arrangements could also be implemented, allowing state structures to switch to remote formats or adjust schedules during heatwaves.

Another area is adapting the kindergartens themselves to climatic conditions: this could include introducing shorter working days or limiting operation during the hottest hours. If this is not possible, provisions should be made for on-duty groups in some kindergartens for children of medical personnel, emergency service employees, and other parents who cannot work remotely.

Political and Infrastructural Steps

Government bodies are recommended to mandate themselves to conduct a gender impact assessment before making any decisions regarding kindergarten closures. Such an assessment should determine how many parents will be affected by the measure, in which areas of employment parents will suffer, and what types of support they will need.

An important step is also investment in the climate resilience of kindergartens, such as installing air conditioning systems, sunshades, improving ventilation, and ensuring backup power for cooling systems. Creating such conditions in several kindergartens can form the basis for establishing the aforementioned on-duty groups.

Monitoring and Future Measures

The government can begin collecting data to develop gender-oriented policies now. It is necessary to record information about parents forced to miss work due to kindergarten closures and how they formalize this (sick leave, unpaid leave, use of annual leave). This data must be collected broken down by gender. Furthermore, it is important to track the impact of kindergarten closures on parents' weekly plans, which is particularly relevant in conditions of high informal employment.

According to the World Meteorological Organization, Asia is warming faster than the global average, and extreme heat has become a characteristic feature of recent years, including 2025 with heatwaves in Central Asia. This implies that the temporary closure of kindergartens will become a more frequent occurrence and must be accompanied by timely social support measures, primarily for women who bear the main burden of unpaid care. Protecting children and supporting parents must happen in parallel so that climate risks do not become exclusively a female problem.

Recently, there has been a sharp increase in the use of therapy-related terminology on social media. People have started frequently using concepts such as 'narcissism,' 'gaslighting,' and most commonly, 'boundaries.'

However, in the pursuit of protecting one's inner peace, we risk losing the essence of the issue. One of the most common questions received in correspondence is something like: 'How can I set clear boundaries in a relationship without becoming a controlling partner?'

The Difference Between a Boundary and Control

This is an extremely important question. In the pursuit of not being taken advantage of, many people build fortress walls around themselves, calling them 'boundaries,' while others leave the doors open, not understanding why they continue to suffer.

It is necessary to understand the subtle balance of boundaries, as both extreme approaches can destroy a partnership, and also to understand how to conduct such a conversation correctly.

First and foremost, it must be realized that a boundary and a controlling rule are not the same thing. Although they may look similar at first glance, their internal purpose is diametrically opposed.

A boundary is related to self-control; it is a statement about what a person will do to protect their own dignity and peace of mind. It focuses entirely on the individual's actions.

A controlling rule, on the other hand, is aimed at controlling another; it is a demand or prescription intended to dictate, restrict, or monitor the partner's behavior.

The Health Test for Relationships

An example of a healthy boundary sounds like this: 'I cannot stay in a relationship where I am lied to.' A controlling rule asserts: 'You are not allowed to go out with friends because I don't trust what you will do.'

Relationships need structure to survive, but like a house, this structure must be strong yet flexible enough to withstand a storm.

For years, hard and soft limits have been discussed, most often in the context of sexual encounters. Rarely is it discussed what is acceptable and unacceptable outside the bedroom.

When a relationship is governed by an endless list of strict rules, it suffocates intimacy. If you constantly monitor who your partner talks to, what they wear, or how they spend every minute of the day under the guise of protecting your boundaries, you are not in a partnership, but in a high-security prison.

Ultimately, the partner will start to distance themselves, accumulate resentment, or rebel against the restrictions. True love cannot exist without trust and freedom.

The Risks of Lacking Boundaries

On the other hand, starting a relationship without any boundaries is a recipe for quiet resentment. If you constantly suppress your dissatisfaction for the sake of 'keeping the peace,' you are not showing tolerance, but slowly undermining your own self-respect.

Without established boundaries, sooner or later you will wake up feeling completely undervalued, exhausted, and bitter toward a partner who doesn't even realize they are violating your invisible lines.

How to Have a Conversation About Boundaries

If you realize that the scale of your relationship is heavily tilted in either direction, it is time to sit down and talk. Here is how to have this conversation without provoking a defensive war.

Timing Matters

Never try to set a boundary in the middle of a fight. Wait for a neutral, calm moment, such as a quiet Sunday morning walk or after a relaxed dinner. As regular readers know, the author prefers moments during a car ride, as the conversational partner has nowhere to run!

Start by expressing your commitment: 'I love our relationship and want to ensure that we both feel safe and respected.'

Focus on Your Experience

Frame the conversation based on your feelings and needs, not on your partner's mistakes. Instead of saying, 'You never check in, and that is disrespectful,' try saying: 'I feel intense anxiety when I don't hear from you for hours during trips. It helps me feel connected when we send a quick message.'

It is important to remember that a boundary requires your action if it is violated. Clearly define what you will do for yourself. For example: 'If we start yelling at each other during an argument, I will take a 20-minute walk to calm down before we continue.'

Make It a Joint Effort

After stating your position, pass the ball to your partner. Ask: 'How do you feel about this? Does this seem reasonable to you, or is there a way to adjust it so it works for both of us?' This prevents the partner from feeling cornered.

Boundaries are not a weapon to punish a partner nor a shield to push people away. When set correctly, boundaries become a roadmap to intimacy. They show your partner how to love you well, without having to guess.

This winter, as we huddle warmer, let's focus on building bridges of clear communication, not walls of control. Your relationship will thank you for it.