Corrupt or Hungry?

The “Corrupt or Hungry?” Context
The phrase fits Steenhuisen’s current controversy:

• Corrupt? Reports claim he spent nearly R460,000 on Uber Eats in 2025 using a political party credit card. Critics argue this is misuse of party resources, pointing to corruption or entitlement.
• Hungry? Steenhuisen has defended himself, saying he has “nothing to hide” and that the expenses were not illegal but part of his lifestyle choices. Supporters might frame this as indulgence rather than corruption.

Why this matters
South Africa’s political climate is highly sensitive to corruption scandals. Even if Steenhuisen’s actions don’t meet the legal threshold of corruption, public trust hinges on perception. Spending nearly half a million rand on takeout while citizens face economic hardship risks painting him as either corrupt (misusing funds) or hungry (indulgent, careless, out of touch).

So, when you ask “corrupt or hungry?” about John Steenhuisen, the answer depends on framing:

• Corrupt if you see the Uber Eats saga as misuse of party resources.
• Hungry if you see it as personal excess, tone-deaf but not criminal.
  Would you like me to break down how this saga is being spun in media narratives vs. DA’s internal defense? That might sharpen whether the dominant perception leans more toward “corrupt” or “hungry.”