Well personally the decision does not sit well with me either but I somewhat understand the rationale - at least in principle. In order to understand it you have to take points a, c and e together.

The fact of the matter is that that South Africa has one of the largest (if not the largest) economic inequality metrics in the world.

"These unequal incomes, according to the Inequality Trends report, remain stubbornly racialised, gendered and spatialised.

White people are more likely to find work. And once they do, they also earn better. Between 2011 and 2015, a white person earned R24 646 per month on average, more than three times the R6 899 of their black counterparts. Female workers earned around 30% less than male workers during the same period, and workers in the countryside earned less than half of what urban workers did."

If you combine that with the fact that our economy was already tattered prior to this whole crisis then one can see that in order to deal with this crisis then you can understand that any relief funds have to be spent prudently. This was also reflected in the president's address last night when he said that water supply support (in the form of boreholes, water tanks, etc) will be sent to , well, poor communities.

Means testing for income is actually more difficult than people realize insofar as administrative time, costs and bureaucracy are concerned. So if you know you have limited resources and a finite amount of time you look at quick metric that have already been establish by what business' have to report annually anyways, namely their ' diversity quotas' and then if they meet a certain threshold, then the entire business will be dealt with accordingly. This ensures that the people who are most affected probabilistically with regards to statistical trends receive the help they need first.

So don't read malice into every decision made. I don't agree with the decision on a philosophical level but I agree with it's pragmatics somewhat.