Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-11

DR RANDERA: Mr Roshalt, can I ask another question on the role of unions, during that period?  The eighties of course saw, a number of states of emergencies declared, by the government of the time.  Thousands of trade unionists were arrested during that time.  Did Barlows have a policy in supporting those trade unionists who were arrested, or their families during their detention.  I know a number of groupings who talked about being against detention without trial, but I haven't come across anybody talking about the support that may have been given, to individual trade unionists during this period.

MR ROSHALT: I wouldn't know.  I honestly can't answer that question.

DR RANDERA: Okay.  So my last question in relate, I understand that there was a period in the eighties where you shared an informal grouping of business people that represented, I understand, something like eight hundred thousand workers between them, and that these meetings then took place between you and the government of the time.  Could you perhaps tell us what discussion mainly took place?

MR ROSHALT: I'm not aware of that.

DR RANDERA: You're not aware of that?

MR ROSHALT: I'm not aware of that.

DR RANDERA: Okay, thank you very much, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Russel and then Mtu(?)

UNKNOWN: Mr Roshalt, let's concede the point, that there were laws and there were the government that was obdulate, your word, and that you doubt whether business could have changed, or influenced in any serious way.  The point you made; but what I find difficult then, is how do you reconcile, this government that doesn't want to change, that's (unclear), that's imposing this immoral political order on the country and yet your company, Barlow Rand, by the eighties, the period of the worst repression, which was inside the country, not outside, is the leading local supplier of arms, to Armscor, used precisely to bolst and strengthen this government you say doesn't want to change.  Now how do you reconcile that?  That you want the government to change, but you supplying them with arms that enstrengthens their position and makes it almost impossible for them to change.

MR ROSHALT: I think it's in the nature of the armaments.  We, as Dr Randera has said, the, our main occupation was within avionics and telecommunication equipment.  And that can never be termed repressive.

UNKNOWN: Do you not concede the point that the military might (unclear) that the government actually had, would make it more (unclear) and make it more unwilling to change, the (unclear) actually feel, it is military to take not only the people inside the country  but also anyone else.  Does that not, is there not a direct relationship between that military strength and wanting to hold on to political power at all costs in a system which you said you opposed?

MR ROSHALT: I can only repeat that I don't believe that you can repress people with avionic equipment.

MTU: Thank you.  Mine is the comment with regard to the initiative that you have correctly referred to where Barlow Rand was in the forefront.  But I just want to put to you, of the vision that is held by many people that such initiative, do not seem to demonstrate genuine commitment to the cultural human rights, by the business sector.  They tend to be a reaction to the (unclear) threat where (unclear) the then oppressed communities were expressing their feelings.  For example, you have made reference to a ( unclear) foundation, and some people link a (unclear) foundation to the Soweto uprisings, that were it not for the Soweto uprisings,  the business sector would not have come up with this brilliant idea and that questions the motive behind, that initiative.  You'd go on and included the representation of the workers at the workplace, the democracy and that, would it not perhaps for the say 1973 strike

MR ROSHALT: Sorry, what was that last one?

MTU: The deaths in 1973 strikes, and the workers would not have been given the opportunities to organise themselves etcetera, etcetera.  The significance of this observation is that it challenges the commitment of the business sector to the culture of human rights.  Were it not for these (unclear) rights, would the business sector have done anything, or they would have quietly continued with the business as donors in the (unclear)?

MR ROSHALT: I think that's a very rhetoric, rhetorical question.  I can say yes, you can say no.  You are questioning the bona fide, the personal bona fides of businessmen and that's something I can't answer.  Certainly in my own case, I would take exception to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and Bongani?

BONGANI FINCA: : Thank you your Grace.  I'd like to just ask a question, after listening to your submission, I'd like to hear your comment on,what do you think, any of you have led to this situation in which we find ourselves in this country , where a minority, mainly whites, (unclear) of our society, happens to live in luxury, when the majority, mainly black, section of our society live in poverty.  Did this just come by accident?

MR ROSHALT: No, it's historic.  It's the depravation of education, and opportunity which are exactly the things that we were trying to fight against in certain sectors of business.  It's clearly that.  There's no question of inequality of ability, it's inequality of opportunity, and that will continue for some time yet.

BONGANI FINCA: In the light of the very outstanding record of very enlightened, workplace performance which your company pursued, looking at it presently, what percentage of your senior management level consists of people who come from previously disadvantaged communities?

MR ROSHALT: I must remind you that I retired in 1990, and that I retired as Chief Executive in 1985, (unclear).

BONGANI FINCA: Could I just get it, the position as at the time of your retirement?

MR ROSHALT: My memory isn't as good as that.  I wish it was.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's probably difficult, I know being slightly older than Bongani, what your memory can do.  I sympathise with you.  Thank you very much Mr Roshalt.

MR ROSHALT: Thank you

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we have any, oh, there is one here. Dr Boraine?

DR BORAINE: Mr Roshalt, I want to try and pursue in a slightly different way, the question raised by one of my colleagues, and that is, I think and I'm not sure, we haven't consulted, that the burden of his question was that, business acts in accordance with its self interest.  As I think most people do.  You accept that?  Agreed?

MR ROSHALT: Yes

DR BORAINE: I think therefore that when the question is asked, would business have responded so dramatically and urgently if it were not for the disastrous events of 1976 in Soweto, not to impugn the goodwill of business but simply to make a point,  that in many instances, if one looks back, one reacted to outbursts which simply could no longer be ignored and therefore tried to do something about that.  Would you say that that was a more true reflection of that?

MR ROSHALT: I think that that's fair comment.  Again I think you have to distinguish between the individuals involved, but there's no question that business acts in its own interests.  And I think that the end of apartheid came when business and other people realised it wasn't working and that it was actually detrimental to the future of the country and to business interests.  So, I have no problem there, I detected a generalisation that all businessmen, have to be prodded before they move.  I don't agree with that, but I think there are a lot that do have to be prodded.