Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-11

DR BORAINE: Ja, I would say that in most instances, not merely the business community, South Africans as a whole, perhaps world wide, we seem to need some kind of prodding.  But let me follow that up with a question, which is, I think what we're looking for.  I'm trying to understand business generally, whether it be individual companies or overall organisations, normally talk about the forces of the market and that one has to be responsive to the market.   I can understand that, I think the present government is beginning to use similar language.  But there are people in business who would, concede, and I'd really like your comment here, because you've been in business a long time, and I know something of what you personally have been trying to do over the years.  That the market doesn't have a conscience.  Now if that is true, then I think a lot of the things that you and your company were doing, suggested that, over and above the dictates of the market, there were initiatives taken.  There are those in South Africa today who say that because the market doesn't have a conscience, that government must be that conscience, and therefore must be the 'midwife' if you like, to bring together capital and labour in order to make sure that there is that conscience.  I hope I'm making myself clear, because what I would really like to know is, how do you see it yourself?  What is the, and I think,you know, all of us, there's a unfortunate linkage between wealth and poverty with whites and blacks.  So it becomes a racial category.  I'm not saying its uniform, but the whole question of, how does business do business, which is perfectly normal and justified, in a situation where the vast majority of people are getting poorer and that means a real threat to business, let alone the moral obligation.  Is there a conscience somewhere, is there a directive somewhere which says, we simply cannot allow business to go on as usual, there must be some other initiatives.  If so what are they, in your view?  And I'm looking to the forward now.

MR ROSHALT: I think that's a very difficult question to answer.  Look, my personal belief is that, business' main operation, main reason is business market.  But I think it has to be done as I,  I hope I have instilled into my own group, with a social conscience, with an understanding that you're saying,  I don't think it's for government to teach us that.  I don't think government is capable of doing so.  I think it's a question of business operating in a proper social sense, making maximum profits, which are taxed by government, and it's for government to do the redistribution thereafter.  That is a very general philosophy, but I would stress that there are ways, of conducting business.  Relationships, with workers.  Support, as I have just been trying to tell you, of business funded organisations which are in that field, the urban foundations, whatever  views the commission might take, did a tremendous job.  The National Business Initiative at the moment,  is constantly being requested by various ministries to come and help, particularly in capacity building, in trying to sort out the absolute chaos in local authorities at the moment.  That's where we can do it as well, but I think to temper business and its main operation of producing the profits, that produces the taxes, which the government then decides in it's wisdom how to use, I think that would be wrong.

DR BORAINE: : A final question, if I may, chairperson.  Because this is what I was trying to lead to.  What is your response to Professor Terblanche, and you will agree that it is not unique to him.  There is  a lot of discussion taking place, in other countries who have moved towards a new democracy, after long years of darkness, if you like.  About the whole question of a once-off, or a stretched out wealth tax along the lines you're suggesting that taxes are therefore there to be able to be used as a corrective to the situation?

MR ROSHALT: I am entirely against it.  And I don't know how you would define beneficiaries, how you would define the victim.  I think that business must pay its taxes and the government in future must do any retribution it requires from those funds.  I do not see that there could be any equity in arbitrarily fixing .05% I think you said, of anyone over two million rand, that's my personal view.

DR BORAINE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  You may stand down.  We are running just a tiny bit late.  We want to call SACCOB.

CHAIRPERSON: Do we congratulate you, (name unclear), on

SPEAKER: Humphrey

CHAIRPERSON: Humphrey, sorry, on your presidence.  We do congratulate you.  You're being a little stiff, why don't you give him a small clapp.  Thank you very much.  Are you all going to chatter?

SPEAKER: Speaking Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Speaking Xhosa.

DR BORAINE: Welcome gentlemen, are you all going to take the oath or affirmation?

SPEAKER: Affirmation

DR BORAINE: Affirmation, anyone else?  All the oath apart from Mr Middleman, so I'll ask the four of you then to take the oath.
Dr Boraine carries out oath.

SPEAKERS: All take oath.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much and Mr Middleman, please be seated.
Dr Boraine carries out affirmation

MR MIDDLEMAN: Mr Middleman takes affirmation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, we are at your mercy.

MR KOZA: The chairperson, Mr Tutu and members of the commission, I'd like, at the outset to introduce the SACCOB delegation.  I have on my right hand side, Mr Phillip Kawitz, immediate past president of SACCOB;  Mr Hans Middleman, a past president who was president of the previous ASACOM in 1960;  Mr  Les Whiel(?), past president of SACCOB;  Mr Raymond Parsons, director general of SACCOB and of course myself, Humphrey Koza, in my new capacity as president of SACCOB.
 Some of you may find it ironic that you are listening to me, a black man, introducing the SACCOB submission.  After all, many see SACCOB as the business establishment, an establishment which, although I believe, rapidly changing, is still overwhelmingly white.  The fact is that +, I would not be here, if  any of my  colleagues here had the slightest inclination to defend the actions, the attitudes and the practices, which individual companies, and commercial concerns or individual business men and women actively showed up the apartheid regime.  Enthusiastically endorsed its policies or profited directly from the suppression of human rights.  That there was such companies and individuals, is undoubtedly true.  But I do not believe, it is true for all business' large and small who were and are, the bedrock of the chamber movement, and who supported the decisions, outlined in the SACCOB submission.
 This, chairperson, is an historical occasion.  Therefore, not only,, for the TRC but also for the South African Chamber of Business.  I would like, chairperson, when we've completed the question and answer section, to make a statement about the future.  I would now like Mr Raymond Parsons, Director General of SACCOB to make the opening statement on behalf of the organisation..

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Please, Mr Parsons.