Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-12

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, time doesn't allow me to actually allow you to

JOHAN RUPERT: Sorry, commissioner, but your letter said that you would submit the questions beforehand so, I've got to be very careful what I answer.  It is my second language, I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: If you'd like to speak in your first language, we'll allow that as well.

MR DHLAMINI: Thank you.  Mine is, goes back to what the archbishop said yesterday when he opened the session.  Amongst other things, he made an appeal for for contribution towards the President's Fund from which reparations are going to be implemented.  I noticed amongst the people who, who testified yesterday, nobody ever responded to that.  I wasn't sure whether perhaps people thought if I said that I've got something to contribute, I'll be admitting guilt and in this case, I would like to say definitely no.  The main aim is to show solidarity and support with the people who suffered.  It's not going to be enough, it's not going to bring back their beloved ones, it's not going to be even enough to rebuild a house that was destroyed.  But I think it goes a long way towards reconciliation, to say look,
"we are with you, we understand how you felt and what happened to you"
I decided to test this one with you, as to what would be the attitude of the business community, towards contribution to the Reparations Fund?  I know that you cannot speak on behalf of everybody, but at the same time I think you can help us with some of the things that perhaps we need to know."

JOHAN RUPERT: When my father started the company, it couldn't afford to pay him, so he had a two and a half- percent management fee.  When it stated making money, and that was before I had any say in it, he waived that, but with the provisor that those funds could be used for the benefit of society.  We've always supported the causes that have been brought to us and certainly, we'll look at this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that was very crisp and clear.   Dr Ally.

UNKNOWN: Meneer Rupert, ek gaan in jou eerst
 Mr Rupert, I will speak in your first language, I trust this is your first language since we are now speaking of the past.  You can't speak on behalf of your father, but it is certainly interesting, it was interesting that he said, at the second economic peoples congress or Volks Kongress, to which you have referred, I would like to know, should this not have reference to the ideas of apartheid, that then developed?  I can understand that he may well not have supported the national party as such but I want to refer to the ideas that were developing during those years, and this is what he said,
"For the existence of both the native,"
 That was the language at that time,
"and ourselves, it is necessary, that we should take the responsibility of our rule, or mastership and the followership of theirs, but this must be a position of being a master, based on achievement, (unclear) with regard to the problem of existence.  We simply as a people, as a Volk, have to survive.  We have been blessed with the means to do so, we must use these means and we must help one another".

<UNKNOWN>: Relate to this philosophy, which actually (unclear).

JOHAN RUPERT: I'll help by not having a translation.  It clearly does not.  But, and I wasn't around then, but obviously one questioned your parents in great detail and I asked them, how is it possible that the Afrikaners could possibly start a thing like this and their answer was, initially, based on fear, they felt that separate, but equal could work.  Now, it soon became apparent that it was not going to be equal, if one minority group had all the assets.  Therefore it was going to be separate, but unequal.  And then it became not only immoral, but practically not implementable.  Now I'm not sure at what stage, this became clear, but initially, I don't believe everybody that started.  I think people actually believed that they could have this fallacy of separate but equal.   And I'm sure if they'd asked for the Volkstaat then, they would have been given it.  The problem is they put the rest of the people in the Volkstaat.
 So, and it's very hard , if  that is read in the context of today's' world, it certainly doesn't - dit strook nie-

SPEAKER UNKOWN: It doesn't hang together with what I know of him

JOHAN RUPERT: Tally, sorry.

UNKNOWN: Mr Rupert, let me just (unclear) my question by saying that I was present at a speech that your father made when I was at University of Pretoria.  I think it was taken up in that booklet, I can't remember the title, and that had an influence on my thinking.  I think the only, or the first time I had any encounter with you really, was after I left the National Party, which speaks with

JOHAN RUPERT: I didn't mix with your predecessors.

DR BORAINE: Which speaks somewhat as corroboration to your position.  But my question goes further than that and this relates to this question of benefiting, of patronage, of favoritism, which you've been denying.  But at the same time, my impression of you and also through your submission and your fathers' is probably best described with loyal resistance, knowing where your roots are, still identifying with a kind of broader, call it an Afrikaner nation, something which cannot really be described, but you still have a feel for that and the loyalty still to that.
 Now my question goes both to understand the past and to look at the future.  Question is, is it possible, to not have a kind of favoritism in a situation where, where you wield power?  Is it possible for the government, for any government not to favor what they perceive to be closer than them, than what is not?  It's not really a problem at the moment, because were agreed on the need for affirmative action policies, for empowerment policies, whatever you want to call it, training and this will remain a subject of debate.  But the question is, will it end when it is not necessary anymore?  My question is more fundamental than simply one of a moral positioning?

JOHAN RUPERT: I'm afraid that patronage and the interaction and begging for favoritism exists all over the world even in modern democracies, like the United States, where you have 'rent a beds' in the White House, so I agree, the question is how to contain it.  I think the real, you're right, the broad Afrikaner, people that speak Afrikaans, yes, absolutely, still identify.  The, how can it be stopped transparency?  If things are transparent, then the population can decide whether its warranted favoritism or not.  We, I believe that there's a fear amongst whites today, that because of what they see and believe was done in the past, the same will be done to them.  And that is a fear.  There's a fear of reverse apartheid coming.  Now, it will have to be addressed, because the replacement of financial capital, that was referred to by the BMF and that I agree with.  That is more easily done, the replacement of intellectual capital, when people actually leave with their brains is far harder to replace.  So I think, to get back, patronage will exist if there is total transparency, then the voters can decide whether they'll tolerate it or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rupert, we'll hope you'll stay for the rest of the day and have tea with us.  I think this is an appropriate time to have, break for tea.  Can I ask people to come back at a quarter past eleven please?  Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
PROFESSOR NIC WIEHAHN -  PRESENTATION

PROF WIEHAHN: ... correctly.  It's Wiehahn, not Weihahn and we are rather particular about that in the family.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to have to sack my secretary for that.