Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-11

MS MKHIZE: Thank you chairperson.  I have two I would say related questions.  The first question for me is, maybe we'll start with that statement.  We have heard quite a number of people making statements to us, claiming that this local business, I'm not talking about the homelands, I'm talking about statements which have been made in the townships that local business somehow colluded with the police, especially in the identification and (inaudible) of young activists.  I would like to hear your comment, that especially because when you started, you gave an impression, that, which, you gave an impression that you pursued a liberation struggle, that's page two of your submission, I notice that, in my mind I was saying, at the same time there is nothing which clearly shows that Nafcoc as an initiative was really significantly different from, than what other business' were standing for, at face value.  Excepting that the way individuals who generally identified with liberation struggles.  So that's my first question.  The second one is, do you think that the new government should actively and conscientiously boost black, organised black business like Nafcoc?  If your answer is yes, I would say, is that morally justifiable and a related one is that, wouldn't that create another black bourgeoisie?  Those are my two questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope that you can answer them maybe fairly briefly so that we can go to tea.

MR KONGWANE: Mr Chairman, if you look at for instance, that happened at Kwandebele.  At least 65% of all our business' there, were destroyed by the system.  These are people, who really were standing against the government of the day.  Actually, the Kwandebele Development Corporation claimed that at least 40%, forty million of the money owed by these people could not be recoverable.  I will say to the honourable member of committee, in every situation you have traitors.  We did have traitors, yes, but in the main, I want us to look at the historical perspective of Nafcoc.  In 1964, when the leadership was thrown into jail, this is when Nafcoc was born and we bore the torch, I am really surprised that Nafcoc is not perceived or recognised as the people who bore the torch when nobody would dare speak, we would.  And because of this, the house of the president of Nafcoc was burned and his uncle who was in it, died in there.  And other business' were also destroyed, and some of us were thrown into jail also, because we did not agree with what happening.

NAFCOC SPEAKER: In fact I want to say this, Mr Chairman, quickly.  In 1989, Dr Masunyane asked me to go to the United States to advocate (unclear), and there was an alternative chamber which was created by big business at the time.  I remember I was on the fourth floor, advocating for sanctions, they were on the first floor ,saying no.  And really if anybody says, Nafcoc was not on the fourth one, that surprised me.
  Well, should the government boost black business, yes, please.  Because if you don't, we're the majority; the majority of business' must come from the majority of the people and if the majority of the people are not boosted, where is the government of the day going to get its taxes from?  Forget the stories of Nafcoc and Madiba.  You know, about tax amnesty, I'm talking about the future.  And really I'm saying, when that happens, we'll be the taxpayers of the day, we'll be building the schools and the clinics, because we will have been boosted by our own government.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much  for doing it so briefly.

NAFCOC SPEAKER: I was still going to add.

CHAIRPERSON: If you will add briefly.

NAFCOC SPEAKER: I'll add briefly.  May I mention that the conference for democratic South Africa, which preceded the release of the leadership, was partly organised, Nafcoc was in the leadership that was organising for that conference.  May I say that the question whether Nafcoc was pro or not at this stage, may not be very important.  I think what is important is the way forward.  What can the government do to ensure that structures are in place, that the aspirations of black business, in the interest of the nation can be achieved.  The (unclear) of business' are changing.  Some business' are becoming black because of the take-over and some of the people will testify here, are testified as blacks, but the sins committed were doing the time when the white business, the white owned business.
 I think the commission should assist by a way of, where, if big business, have to direct its efforts to help small business, how can they do that?  How can we structure that relationship to ensure that they actually move forward in assisting black business.  I mean if we don't assist black business, I will put it crudely, blacks will remain servants instead of also becoming employers of people in this country.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  It's been a very useful input and the exchanges we value (unclear).  We do have to look at the past.  It is a important ingredient in relation to what we are able to say of the present and of the future.  Let us take a break for tea and resume at half past.
DR BORAINE(?): Are we done?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm needing to revise what I was going to say about Armscor because they have decided they are coming.  So I will have Plan B, I won't use it.  We would like to call the representatives of Barlow Rand please.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roshalt(?) will you please stand so that Dr Boraine administers the oath.

DR BORAINE: Mr Roshalt, welcome, it is very nice to see you.  Thank you for coming and taking part in these hearings.  Will you take the oath or the affirmation?

MR ROSHALT: Oath.

DR BORAINE: Dr Boraine administers oath.

MR ROSHALT: Mr Roshalt, swears to oath.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much, please be seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  You want to, you have the floor as they say.  No, it's the, it's the base.  This base, yes, there you are.