Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-11

SACCOB SPEAKER: The answer, and I'm sure Hans Middleman will expand upon that; the answer is unquestionably, yes we did oppose those laws.  I refer you to page 38, 1986 motion.
"Bring about change in South Africa, after the preamble, make a commitment to the abolition of all the main and discriminatory measures including the Group Areas Act.  And as part of the ongoing process of reform, take immediate steps to open all areas for business etcetera."
We specifically spoke out against areas, like the Group Areas Act.  We spoke out against detention without trial, without question we spoke out clearly on those matters.  And we spoke out about issues which we felt injured our fellow South Africans in many areas.  We were not popular for our views.  Certain of us received death threats and other abuse.  I can honestly say, your Grace, I believe that within our ranks, were a number of sincere people who did what they could, within their own constraints to try and oppose the system.  That perhaps we did not do enough, Raymond Parsons has already eluded to.  That perhaps we acquiesced to behaviour which we should not have acquiesced to, one has to acknowledge.  We did not expel the member who refused to sign a charter for change, perhaps we should have.  We tried to encourage people to be part of the process.  But there was a sincere desire on the vast majority, on behalf of the vast majority to try and build a moral structure in our country, with which we as business people could live.

MS MKHIZE: And just another specific question.  On page 18, of your document, you submit that you were critical of detention without trial of trade union leaders.  I would just like to know whether there were any actions, which were taken to object, or oppose repressive security measures by  a strong body like SACCOB?

SACCOB SPEAKER: I can attest personally to meeting with cabinet ministers where we specifically requested trade union leaders to be released, where we requested and in certain cases were successful, in obtaining the release of ANC and SWAPO members, to try and encourage us, to try and encourage the government to enter into discussions with these people.  I met with Minister Chris Heunis at the time, I was in his office when calls were made to ministers of police.  We were successful in getting some of those people released.  We met clandestinely in people's homes and we did definitely actively, obtain the release of people.  Our view was that you could not change the minds of people by locking them away and throwing away keys.  Our view was one of constructive engagement with people, to try and interact.  I have to say that in those meetings, we found that view to be correct.  We found people who felt that they were polarised.  Suddenly finding that we had commonalties and common aspirations and yes, we did definitely play an active role in that area.

MS MKHIZE: We also have this tension where Nafcoc contained  that SACCOB did not permit black business to be members of SACCOB; and SACCOB on the same time, page four, submits that it never excluded any business on the basis of race.  I just want to ask whether, did SACCOB open its membership to black business' and if so, what did SACCOB do to protect those business' for example against the Group Areas Act, which prohibited black business in white areas.

MR PARSONS: Chairperson, perhaps I can just confirm that statement is correct.  That the previous ASACOM had no barriers in its constitution, to in fact membership from all race groups.  And I just mention that in regard to the reference earlier, to Dr Sam Motsonyane.  In his period as president of Nafcoc, I recall that when I was with the old ASACOM, there was a very close working relationship with him.  In fact the South African Council of the International Chamber of Commerce, appointed him as there chairperson in 1974, and that was one of the results of the co-operative relationship which we had with Nafcoc during that particular period.

CHAIRPERSON: Last, oh you wonderful child, thank you.

MS MKHIZE: Just to, a last question.  We heard this morning what Professor Terblanche said,  he made a strong call, that social justice demand that those who have been the beneficiaries of the power structures of white political supremacy and racial capitalism, have a responsibility to make a substantial sacrifice towards those that have been the victims of those power structures.  I would like to hear your comment.

SACCOB SPEAKER: Chairperson, I believe that our record stands proudly before us.  I believe that we have consistently shown that we did not support the system of apartheid.  I believe also carefully set out in our document, chapter and verse, is the fact that apartheid was not economically beneficial to the country.  We heard Dr Roshalt say, earlier, that in many cases, business acts in its own best interests.  Perhaps one of the reasons why so many of us opposed apartheid, was it was not in the best interest of business.  Many of our business' would have performed substantially better, had there not been apartheid.  Apartheid robbed our people of education and talent, and that denuded our business community of the ability to compete effectively.  Under sanctions this country was raped by the exportation of raw materials which still continued whilst we were unable to add a human content to add jobs.  Jobs mean more consumers, more consumers mean a growing economy.  In every way, just as there was tremendous sufferance's, by people of colour, just as there were greater sacrifices and greater inconveniences by people in unions, business itself did not prosper under apartheid and our document sets out some categoric evidence of that fact.
 We believe, that taxes; the high level of taxation that we have in South Africa at the moment is in effect, the price that we are paying in taxation for the sins of the past and we believe that that system of taxation should be used constructively to build a better future for all South Africans.  We would be opposed to a special taxation in the form of a reparation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Alex, very briefly.

DR BORAINE: Just a couple of questions.  When SACCOB and its predecessors decided that one of the ways in which to try and bring about some change was to move towards constructive engagement.  It's not an exact parallel but, that was a very similar decision taken by the state department of the United States of America.  As a direct result of that, the majority of people in South Africa were extremely critical of the United States because they saw in this constructive engagement, collusion.  Rightly or wrongly?  It seems to me that one of the reasons why, the overwhelming black majority in South Africa still talk in terms of the submissions made to us and in general, statements made to the media, saw business as it were, in bed with government; that's a phrase I'm sure you've heard many times, may have flowed from a perception that powerful interests and powerful white business in particular, were seen to be in constructive engagement with government.  Looking back, were there downsides to that as well as the opportunity to tell government what you thought was right, and what was wrong?