Paul Janisch

The race is on - does anyone really need to win?

Not to flog a dead horse - but this is how race was determined in the heady days of apartheid.  This was taken from Constitionally Speaking  - which everyone should subscribe to.

 The Population Registration Act 30 of 1950 required every South African to be classified in terms of race and these apartheid race categories included “african”, “white”, “coloured”, “other coloured” or “indian”.
The Act was amended often to try and make it more difficult to reclassify anyone as “white”, but the definitions used at one time included the following:
Although this Act was finally abolished in 1991,

• A white person is one who is in appearance obviously white — and not generally accepted as Coloured – or who is generally accepted as White – and is not obviously Non-White, provided that a person shall not be classified as a White person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu…”
• “A Bantu is a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa…”
• “A Coloured is a person who is not a White person or a Bantu…”

The Act was finally abolished in 1991.

And seeing that race is now VERY relevant we can only hope that level headed people like Trevor Manuel are able to keep our heads down and focus on the ultimate goal - and that has to be empowerment of the people.  This is an excerpt from Trevor's letter to jungle jim

As a consequence of your behaviour, people like me  ‐ in the ANC and in government, are being asked to explain what was in the mind of the drafters of the amendments to the Employment Equity Act. We were present at the point of the debate of the first Employment Equity Bill; we expressed a complete comfort with the assignment of 'designated groups' to include “black people” which means "Africans, Coloureds and Indians." because it served as a representation of our constitutionality and as the fruits of our struggle. When in your capacity as Chairperson of the Employment Equity Commission you made strange utterances that sought to carve away at the basic premise of the Employment Equity Act, we should have been more vigilant. The just and constitutionally obligated provisions for redress are not and can never be an excuse to perpetuate racism.  

The race is on - does anyone really need to win?

Not to flog a dead horse - but this is how race was determined in the heady days of apartheid.  This was taken from Constitionally Speaking  - which everyone should subscribe to.

 The Population Registration Act 30 of 1950 required every South African to be classified in terms of race and these apartheid race categories included “african”, “white”, “coloured”, “other coloured” or “indian”.
The Act was amended often to try and make it more difficult to reclassify anyone as “white”, but the definitions used at one time included the following:
Although this Act was finally abolished in 1991,

• A white person is one who is in appearance obviously white — and not generally accepted as Coloured – or who is generally accepted as White – and is not obviously Non-White, provided that a person shall not be classified as a White person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu…”
• “A Bantu is a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa…”
• “A Coloured is a person who is not a White person or a Bantu…”

The Act was finally abolished in 1991.

And seeing that race is now VERY relevant we can only hope that level headed people like Trevor Manuel are able to keep our heads down and focus on the ultimate goal - and that has to be empowerment of the people.  This is an excerpt from Trevor's letter to jungle jim

As a consequence of your behaviour, people like me  ‐ in the ANC and in government, are being asked to explain what was in the mind of the drafters of the amendments to the Employment Equity Act. We were present at the point of the debate of the first Employment Equity Bill; we expressed a complete comfort with the assignment of 'designated groups' to include “black people” which means "Africans, Coloureds and Indians." because it served as a representation of our constitutionality and as the fruits of our struggle. When in your capacity as Chairperson of the Employment Equity Commission you made strange utterances that sought to carve away at the basic premise of the Employment Equity Act, we should have been more vigilant. The just and constitutionally obligated provisions for redress are not and can never be an excuse to perpetuate racism.  

jungle (good) lore(d)

Did I not suggest that jungle would ultimately hang himself.  I am now even more convinced that he will.  Y'see no one (except for a few mense in power) likes him.  We all know that he is

1. A racist (and not a very good one at that)
2. Incompetent (the stories run rampant about his so-called "corporate" past)
3. An extreme racist
4. An ignoramus
5. A rabid racist

Now jungle's racism is nothing unique - as it turns out he got all his great ideas from grand apartheid.

Our zero went on TV (last year and not in his current position) and told Freek that the coloureds were over concentrated in the western Cape.  

"I think its very important for coloured people in this country to understand that South Africa belongs to them in totality, not just the Western Cape. 
"So this over-concentration of coloureds in the Western Cape is not working for them.

 Wasn't apartheid rather like this, or the Indian Reservations in the USA?  A certain race is in a certain place and you don't want them there - easy, move them.  Only jungle tries to couch this in some sort of economic necessity (I'm not going to point out his stunning grammatical foute - feel free to observe these yourself)

There's a requirement of coloureds in Limpopo, there's a requirement of coloureds everywhere else in the country.

And how do you solve this, jungle style.

"They should spread in the rest of the country ... so they must stop this over-concentration situation because they are in over-supply where they are so you must look into the country and see where you can meet the supply."

My oh my (actually I really wanted to write MY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I'm no Pierre de Vos so I'll limit my Constitutional comments to section 21

Freedom of movement and residence    

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.    
2. Everyone has the right to leave the Republic.  
3. Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in, the Republic.    
4. Every citizen has the right to a passport.  

Oh jungle will argue that it is racists who made them stay there and now they should move.  But the informed few will once again sigh deeply and look away in embarrassment.  However we are in for a very humorous ride with him the official mouthpiece of the government - as if Zumachine Gatdoesn't have enough problems on his hands, and it's an election year).

If you don't believe me then watch below (better hurry before the Zumatics take it down).

jungle's defence to this.

"This was the BMF position. I have no feelings on any issue. I speak as BMF chairman or as the government spokesman,"

How on earth can either of these two (caring and competent) institutions have such a ........... speaking for them?

 

jungle swings to another post

It would be completely wrong not to comment on jungle's new post.  I think it's brilliant - he was far to0 dangerous in the labour department, so him uttering government policy is fantastic.  He is very opinionated about topics that he knows or understands very little about - this is perfect for him, he doesn't even have to think about what he's saying.

By all accounts he's not the most competent person at much, this is the rope (or perhaps vine)  that he will need to hang himself.

Go on jungle - prove me wrong here.

A new cabinet and jungle lore

Well, well, well, Zoomachine Gun shows a little mettle and we get a new cabinet.  Can't say I thought much of Nyanda anyway. What is interesting though is that Mdladlana has been replaced as minister of labour by Mildred Oliphant.  We all know that jungle was booted out of Mdladlana's ministry, but we don't really know why.  And jungle is starting to get vociferous again, although he is saying nothing new or significant as usual. Does this now mean that jungle is going back to the labour department?  Could the "concerned BMF ex-presidents" be actually working in cahoots with Manyi (manzi really) so that he can go back to his calling to root out racism in the private sector.  Think about it, one of the biggest concerns was that jungle was conflicted as a government employee and the chairman of the bee-em-EFF.  Get rid of him and then he can go back to his old job.  Maybe not. 

jungle's diatribe on industry charters is at least four years old (like almost everything that comes out of his mouth), no one listened then.  However there is slight merit to what he says.  The construction charter has some serious flaws and the transport charter is lacking in vital definitions (I haven't read the property charter yet).  Most other charters are very close to the DTI's codes anyway.  But the FSC is the most unique document we have - take that away and the financial sector can go for the highest score without providing a single financial product to the un-banked.

 

On how the BMF is an inherent danger to society

The title is loosely inspired by either AA Milne or Kenneth Grahame - I can't be sure.  The terribly relevant Black Management Forum has issued a little notice about the PPPFA.  And I paste

The Black Management Forum has made a submission on the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Regulations through BUSA as a member organisation.  "The BMF is dissatisfied with the PPPF Act and calls for its total overhaul or repeal and replacement by the Procurement BBBEE Codes of good practice", said Tembakazi Mnyaka , the BMF Deputy President.  The overhaul suggested by the BMF includes the following provisions, "50 of the 100 points be allocated to BBBEE compliance, a minimum level 4 contributor for Public Service compliance, remove all thresholds irrespective of value, implement 30% set- aside on government procurement and include a mandatory audit by the Auditor General of Public Sector BBBEE compliance", continued Mnyaka.

Now I have heard the totally disgraced jungle utter these same words before (could it be that he is too shy to talk out at the moment?).  What their deputy president is actually asking for is an amendment to the constitution.  Because what they are asking for is stipulated in section 217 of the constitution.  Check it

Procurement
217. (1) When an organ of state in the national, provincial or local sphere of government, or any other institution identified in national legislation, contracts for goods or services, it must do so in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the organs of state or institutions referred to in that subsection from implementing a procurement policy providing for -
(a) categories of preference in the allocation of contracts; and
(b) the protection or advancement of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.
(3) National legislation must prescribe a framework within which the policy referred to in subsection (2) may be implemented.

217(3) actually refers to the PPPFA.  It's section 217(1) that is relevant though especially the words fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

If you follow the BMF's recommendation you are going to have a huge problem with fairness and equitability.  Any set aside cannot ever be viewed as fair or equitable (and they have been outlawed by Treasury anyway).  A set aside precludes certain types of bidders from submitting bids - in other words if you are not a level 4 player don't bother bidding. 

This then impacts on cost-effectiveness.  Two reasons are given (by me)

1. By eliminating a series of bidders (including foreign companies) you might not get the best price. 
2. You pay a premium of 50% for empowerment (the BMF is requested for a 50:50 regime for empowerment).  The corporate coffers would be dry very soon if we let this crowd loose on government procurement. I was going to mention that this is a ludicrous suggestion - but I have never seen anything from the BMF that isn't ludicrous.

Enough of that for now.  The BMF website is very short on jungle's expulsion from the DoL (sorry, I meant suspension).  But if you want a lovely overview of Manyi the personality and why perhaps he was suspended - you must read Chris Barron's piece  Pay special attention to the last paragraph

Could there possibly have been a misunderstanding or a problem of interpretation, I asked the Norwegian embassy? "No," I was told.

So the question now is whether we should let the BMF attack our constitution or not - your comments would be appreciated.

Un jungle avec kaput

Oh no, jungle has been suspended.  So pleased am I that I will post all the references to this I can find.  Here, here, here, and Eyewitness News who broke the story for me.  They obviously think this is a such a non-event that they have ditched the story.  A bit of a non-event for a non-event.  Problem is I don't think jungle is a non-event.  I think he is the uber racist who has raked so much muck around when it comes to races getting along - and he has had the blessing of the BMF and the apparent blessing of the DoL. 

It seems that our zero went off to the Norwegians to talk about decent work, a subject old Tarzan is apparently well versed in.  The conversation then moved onto BEE (a subject I happen to know a lot more about than him), but not specifically BEE..........I'll let Tim Cohen pick up the rest of the story

The meeting, however, turned into a pitch for funds on behalf of particular BEE entities. It remains unclear whether Manyi was pitching his own businesses or those of his mates, but in either case, he clearly crossed the line.

Manyi claims it is his patriotic duty to seek foreign investment, and indeed it is. But it is not his duty to instruct donors with whom to invest, particularly if it involves projects in which he personally has an interest or even in which his mates have interests.

And so jim is suspended.  He has always been without credibility in the business sector, will this lack of credibility be eventually picked up by the irrelevant BMF?

The race is on - a pissed off post

My good friend Howard Rybko is at pains to point out that if you are going to appeal to the Google deity (el supremo I believe) then you must post a lot and put it all over the place – Twitter, Myspace, Facebook etc. And I have been remiss in the posting department, so to stem the coming wrath I shall post one long but segmented post.

It's costly in the jungle

The department of labour needs another R1bn in the next financial year to operate professionally and deliver on its mandate, director general Jimmy Manyi told parliamentarians on Tuesday.

So we are told by Fin24. I could see this coming and it is the beginning of the end for our intrepid jungle jim. Every totalitarian system needs unlimited funds to continue its brutal work – grand apartheid was a very costly regime and eventually collapsed when the cash ran out. Our hero claims that he needs the R1bn for

"Among our needs are to have statisticians who do number crunching and enable the department to analyse labour market issues, civil engineers who inspect buildings in the construction industry, medical doctors going through various hospital records and a whole range of teams of experts to enable the department to professionalise its service."

And then he lets slip that what he really wants the money for is

transformation was one of the biggest problems in South Africa "as far as inspections and enforcement services are concerned".

Yes readers, our esteemed DEEGEE wants cash to police the racist white companies and ensure that they transform to his satisfaction. It's all about racism with jungle and he will go to any lengths and spend all our tax money to prove this. We should let him go ahead – give him the money for three years after which Treasury will call for an audit and when he comes up with nothing – because, like many of our cabinet ministers and MPs, jim is not big on action he just likes seeing his name and face in print and on TV, jim will be without a job.

BEE –EM-EFFort

jungle's friends at the BMF have (quite correctly of course) noted that the call for lifestyle audits as masking 'racist narratives'. These narratives say "black Africans cannot be wealthy without being corrupt, the Black Management Forum said on Tuesday". (23 March-ish). Isn't amazing that when racism is alleged (in this case empirically proven) then the English goes back to about 1900. Very fine statement, full of words like narratives, manipulate and de-historicise.

Apparently the racists (read whites) when asking for lifestyle audits (apparently it is only racists who do this) are perpetuating a narrative

"In doing so, the purveyors of this narrative seek to silence the emerging black economic elite and middle class, lest they are blackmailed by the now exposed banner that says: blacks cannot be wealthy."

All this verbiage (oh shit – now I've joined the antiquated language collective too) is credited to BMF deputy president Tembakazi Mnyaka. Of all the utterances exiting his mouth there is only one sentence that makes sense to my (white and hence racist) head

"Blacks should not be made to feel ashamed of legitimately acquired wealth or sorry for doing business with government,"

You are so correct Mr Mnyaka. In fact no one should feel guilty about this not even whites or Chinese. Our big problem is that our tax money is ending up in the hands of not only politically connected people but politicians who seem to be flouting tender regulations in a rather plunderous fashion. I'll tell you what 'Kazi, you let us racists question this stuff and if it goes to court and we are proved wrong then you are right – we are racists (I sense that you might find a bunch of black people also racist in the process). If we are proved right then you have singularly managed to confirm the perception that the BMF is nothing more than a bunch of disgruntled people who are not connected enough to line their own pockets with the government's generous benevolence.

Black wealth

Another little thing on blacks getting wealthy is that issue of Mzi Khumalo who did one too many Mzi's and blotted his BEE copy book.  Strangely enough I think the Mzi's little blow with Basil Read makes perfect sense.  He does a "BEE deal" with Basil Read, buys shares at an incredibe discount and eight months later sells them for a nice bundle  (after doing something similar to Harmony Gold in 2002).  At that point Basil Read needs to find another 15-odd percent black shareholding. 

We should not be too hasty to dismiss this behaviour.  Yes Mzi did the Mzi on Basil Read which really is in bad faith, but he is a capitalist and capitalists borrow money (or in some cases invest their own money) to generate wealth.  I don't bear Mzi any grudges in this venture at all - however if I was a major business looking for a black partner I wouldn't go near him.

The changing face of BEE deals as per FM?

Taken from an FM article on BEE investment houses who end up being benificiaries of deals and their overall performance.  The article concludes that BEE deals need to evolve, suggesting perhaps that a move toward entrepreneurship and away from passive hand-out involvement.

Recent broad-based empowerment deals from the likes of SAB, Tiger Brands and Adcock Ingram point to a changing trend in the structuring of black economic empowerment (BEE) deals. The tide has swung away from those that favour one black company or group of individuals. "The BEE deals of today are different to the way they were structured five years ago," says Sanlam Investment Management portfolio manager Ricco Friedrich. "Staff and related communities are now the preferred beneficiaries in deals that are broad based. They are more sustainable than the kind that favoured the usual suspects'. Those are dead in the water."

And then there is this quote from Jenny Cargill of BusinessMap.

"Current policy has effectively placed a 25% ceiling on BEE equity ownership. The acquisition of controlling interests by BEE investors is no longer evident and this has led to a more opportunistic character to BEE ownership."

I have always noted the sterility of the 25% target.  Once you set a target then people go for it and rarely exceed it - ask any sales manager.  Could this be why jungle (speaking predictably out of turn) is suggesting a 30% equity target by 2017?  Got to love his exemplorary knowledge of BEE and affirmative procurement.  And why not leave this post with a quote from my esteemed aficianado

Manyi said the BMF was changing its focus to concentrate on ownership, affirmative procurement and enterprise development instead of employment equity.

Does this mean that it's his other hat as DoL DG that will be looking after the EE side?

Govt. commits to improving lives of the disabled and a bit on the advisory council

Got this off the Eyewitness News website.  It's the last paragraph that interests me

“By 2014 we should have achieved our employment equity targets, the Welcome to The Ollie Halsall Archive minimum of two percent according to the Employment Equity Act,” said Motlanthe.

Hmm - by that stage everyone else is supposed to have reached a target of 3% for black people alone.  This is an omission in the codes - perhaps the new advisory council will do something about this.  This could be their first test.

And a post within a post - I was quoted by Business Report this morning

Paul Janisch, the chief executive of Caird Consulting, a BEE compliance firm, said the council should have had more private sector representation. "Remember the private sector has to implement the BEE that politicians want. It would be much easier for them to implement it if they were well represented on the council."

When I was speaking to Mzwandile yesterday I was at pains to point out that the council seemed to be too heavy on politicians, labour and black lobby groups (like the BMF and BLA).  I think there should have been more business representation to temper labour and the BMF's ridiculous notions and demands.  What we need to be very wary of is the jungle mantra of "empowerment at all costs".  We have seen the folly of this thought in the Tshwane and police cases.  In both cases positions have either been frozen because EE candidates did not apply for the job - the Tshwane case is absolutely scary.  The police case's judgment is reserved but I will be very interested in reading it when it is made public.