Zuma has appointed new members for the presidential black economic empowerment council, his office said on Thursday.
- Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies; (communist - liabilitiy)
- Susan Shabangu, Minister of Women in the presidency; (useless mining minister - liability)
- Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant; (look at the state of employee legislation - draconian. All under her watch. Liability)
- Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi; (Zuma man - liability)
- Zingiswa Losi, the second deputy president of the Congress of SA Trade Unions; (trade unionist - massive liability)
- Tantaswa Fubu, president of the Association for the Advancement of Black Accountants of SA; (less of a liability)
- Puleng Tsebe, deputy chairman of Disabled People SA; (don't know this person, my guess is liability)
- Sandile Zungu, vice-president of the Black Business Council; (professional black, has run a business, but exists because of Zuma and it does not appear that business respects him - massive liability)
- Clive Manci, member of the Board of Business Unity SA; (seems to be a bona fide businessman - I approve)
- Eltie Links, chairman of Doing Business in Africa at the Stellenbosch Graduate School of Business; (president of the AHI, OK)
- Chantyl Mulder, senior executive for professional development and transformation at the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants; (Very nice person, but knows as much about running a business as Rob Davies. Liability)
- Lefadi Makibinyane, chief executive of the Council for Consulting Engineers SA; (OK - not bad)
- Thami Mazwai, executive chairman of Mtiya Dynamics; (Bitter man - chip exists, ANC patsy, MASSIVE LIABILITY)
- Yershen Pillay, chairman of the National Youth Development Agency; (probably a liability)
- Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele, former housing minister and Central Energy Fund chairwoman; (Zuma person - liability)
- Mike Mlengana, president of the African Farmers Association of SA; (why him, why? Liability)
- Zinhle Cele, deputy secretary general of the Progressive Professionals Forum; (Let's be clear about this. This is jungle jim's baby. It's an ANC organ and a liability)
- Koko Khumalo, deputy president of the Black Management Forum and; (The BMF is getting its act together. I don't expect this person to be the voice of reason amongst this crowd of Zuma cronies. Will ultimately amount to nothing)
- Caroline Magadla, treasurer general of the SA National Apex Cooperative. (Can't find anything on her. She's spared my analysis)
We need to see this in context. The Amended BEE Act (which apprently will come into effect this month) states that these people will be PAID for doing this - so much for Nene reducing government expenditure. Zuma has filled it with mostly black people (other than Chantyl), many of whom are his cronies, buddies, mates, backers etc. The timing is almost perfect. How are we ever going to take them seriously. Thank god Ellen has her hands full with the Zuma-approved tactic of delaying the inevitable, and is no longer on the council (although she might need the money).
But my question is very simply, if BEE is now a white problem, which the new codes go to great lengths to stress, then why do we not have white business people sitting on this council. You've got a bunch of people pronouncing on BEE and its implementation and they are exempted from dealing with the challenges in getting Rob's codes off the ground.
This is like having a bunch of plumbers deciding how dentists should behave.
Critics of the new regulations also argued that there was not enough time for public comments. They alleged that only 35 days had been given for public scrutiny as opposed to 60 days stipulated by the law.
Reacting to the concerns, Ms Mesatywa said: "The minister (Rob Davies) has a prerogative to apply his mind and consider extending the commentary period, if there is a compelling need."
Normally I'd start off with "Perhaps I am wrong". But I'm not wrong, Davies has a prerogative to follow the letter of the law - which requires 60 days. The application (of his absence) of his mind is a precondition for being in his position.
Simply put this is a DTI shrug off. What they really are saying is that they will do whatever they want to do and you will tolerate it. And they don't care what the legislation or constitution says.
Why you ask. Simple - because they think we'll do nothing about it.
IT IS every person’s civic and moral duty to ask himself whether the government that has power over him is just and fair. He may not have elected the government, and in a democracy it is proper to be resigned to the power that the majority’s bidding has over him. But sometimes the government is so impudent and shameful, so contrary to his sense of justice and fair play, that a man finds its power intolerable. The moral question arises of how he ought to behave. Should he acquiesce as a man resigned? Should he wage a silent struggle against its overweening power? Should he violently thrash against its unbearable dominion?
It is within the context of this paragraph that we need to remind the government that they cannot legislate arbitrarily. It's enough now. Money is coming for our court case - a sign that we've had enough.
It's just loud gangster rap. I don't think it's hate speech and I don't agree with music censorship at all (although I think we'd be doing the world a favour if we banned Steve Hofmeyer). I do love Richard Poplak's writing in general. He is particularly entertaining in this Daily Maverick post.
It's not the first song that I am aware of that speaks about farm workers moering their baases. Check out Ou Kleine Jannie by Mr Mac and the Genuines. A fantastic song
CLASSIFYING people in accordance with their race is "legally impossible", says trade union Solidarity in court papers challenging the constitutionality of an affirmative action policy.
The aim of the policy is to address the fact that the lucrative liquidation industry still remains largely a white, male enclave. But the implication of Solidarity’s argument is that all affirmative action policies would be unlawful — unless there is a system to determine how to categorise people in terms of race.
The argument is likely to raise eyebrows because the constitution specifically approves of "measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination" — including race-based measures, according to the Constitutional Court.
This is a very important case. The two underlined sentences capture the nub of the issue. Section 9(2) of the Constitution contains the second sentence. This is the section that the government uses as a blanket to cover all of its dodgy measures like the revised codes. I think that what Solidarity is questioning is whether the Constitution allows for racial classification. I don't think it does, if you cannot break people down into race groups then you can't have any EAP.
In heads, Solidarity’s counsel Greta Engelbrecht said that even the architects of the apartheid-era race classification system struggled to establish "with precision" the race of some people, adopting "ridiculous tests".
Ms Engelbrecht quoted University of Cape Town sociologist Deborah Posel at length, in describing some of the absurd methods used to classify people during apartheid days — including the infamous "pencil test", the "feel of an earlobe" and examining the "patch of skin on the inside of an arm".
"One official insisted he could tell a coloured with absolute certainty by the way he spits," quoted Ms Engelbrecht.
Though the hated Population Registration Act was repealed, Ms Engelbrecht argued the postapartheid government was still "seeking to arrange society" as four distinct races. "How in a postapartheid era we are to determine who is ‘African’, ‘coloured’, ‘white’ and ‘Indian’, is not explained," said Ms Engelbrecht.
I do understand that we need to do something about the African majority, but the government is not going about it in any legal way. And the worst thing is that we are sitting here and tolerating this flagrant violation of Constitutional rights. Just like frogs in luke warm water that is heating up very quickly.
Once upon a time competent minister of trade and industry published the Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment Act (53 of 2003). The incumbent then decided to amend it and added in a lot of unmonitorable rubbish and sent it off to the most competent of competent people, the Duke of Nkandla, for signature. The amendment lies gathering dust somewhere, but it did include the original section 9(5) which stated the following
The Minister must, before issuing, replacing or amending a code of good practice in terms of subsection (1)
Publish the draft code of good practice or amendment in the Gazette for public comment; and
Grant interested persons a period of at least 60 days to comment on the draft code of good practice or amendment as the case may be.
On Friday, Rob dumped the remaining statements and codes on us with this preamble
Maybe there is something that I missed here, but I see these as either new codes or amendments of existing codes. Rob has however given us just over 30 days to comment – that's round about half the period that the Act prescribes.
Is there any point in asking him why he did this, the answer is no because we know that he has very little time to publish the final codes and needs to get moving here. I also think that he's made his mind up and that these statements are final. I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of the new statements, other than they read better than 36928. But if you want to read them you can download them here.
It is important that business and other powerful players as well as citizens from all walks of life find a way of acting together, not only to remove Zuma but also to set in place a system of clean governance in accordance with the requirements of constitutionalism and democratic rule.
While some or most of those who will support such moves and definitely benefit most come from the poorest communities, they share with the wealthy in the need for stability and restoring democratic rule.
In order to achieve this we need to do more than remove Zuma. The relationships through which he has enriched himself need to be uprooted so that others cannot benefit themselves at the expense of the wellbeing of the people.
They don't need government or corporate business to survive. The argument behind the inflated loan for Luminance is that black people spend a lot of money on expensive dresses so why not buy from an expensive black-owned dress shop.
I don't see how you could ever legislate the "transformation" of the retail sector - but I wouldn't put it past that iDioTIc department to try