Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-13

BONGANI FINCA: My last question is on violence.  On page nine of your submission, you say that you did not support the struggle for justice in this country, because you're opposed to use of violence by the liberation movements.
 Just in passing, I don't whether you know that the ANC and the PAC spent many years negotiating with the NP Government before they ultimately resorted to violence, but my real question is this one.
 If it is true that you were opposed to violence, why did your Chairman, Dr Fred du Plessis, agreed to serve in the NP Government defence advisory council?  Can you say in fact before this Commission, that SANLAM did not involve in the activities of ARMSCOR in any way or was it the violence of the liberations organisations which was - which you're opposed to rather than the violence of the state that is beginning to be coming out before the country in the hearings that are taking place throughout the country on amnesty?

DESMOND SMITH: Chairman, I cannot comment on the late Dr Fred du Plessis's considerations in serving on the board of ARMSCOR.  What I can imagine is that there was no appreciation for the facts of the situation of the violence taking place, being perpetrated and that it was an ignorance of this and in an effort to make a contribution to a particularly meaningful element of the economy in South Africa, namely ARMSCOR, that it was in that spirit that Dr Du Plessis served on the board of ARMSCOR.
 I'm afraid I have no other comment.  Thank you.

BONGANI FINCA: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Rev Bongani.  Dr Ally, one question.

RUSSELL ALLY: This will be a long question.  You just before - this is actually a follow on on the themes which Rev Bongani were developing.  You said that regardless of the Government, business has to adapt, but it would seem that in SANLAM's case it was not regardless of Government, it was precisely because of the nature of the Government that SANLAM did so well.
 That until 1948 SANLAM was not that big a player in the economy.  That subsequent to 1948 when the Nationalist Party came into power, SANLAM's position grew quite significantly and a lot of that had to do with the direct role which Government played in moving pension funds of civil servants to SANLAM and other favours.
 Now, would you not concede that on the part of Black people in the country that there may be a lot of cynicism that after having benefitted in this direct way, SANLAM now says that there must not be this direct intervention of Government in economy.  It's harmful, after SANLAM has benefitted. 
 There must not be this reverse discrimination after SANLAM has benefitted directly from discrimination.  There mustn't be this special favouritism that you - that it's easy for SANLAM to say that having benefitted.
 Why shouldn't the Government do the exact same that the previous Government did to SANLAM?

DESMOND SMITH: Chairman, it's a long question.  I'll try and give a short answer.  I can understand, Dr, the cynicism and I think it's quite understandable.
 I don't believe if one looks at the life assurance industry as such over the last number of decades, I think you will find that the growth experienced within SANLAM has not been out of proportion to the growth within organisations such as the Old Mutual and Liberty Life and Southern Life.  
 That is has been an industry which has been growing and this - SANLAM has been within a growing industry.  I do not dispute and I cannot dispute that because of the cordial relationship that existed between SANLAM and Government and I must assume that those cordial relationships existed between the other organisations that I referred to and Government.  
 I concede that we were able to do good business in that environment.  I also believe that we were not doing business on a bases of not providing value, but that in actual fact we were doing it on the bases of providing value and that it was not to the ....(inaudible) of the ultimate beneficiaries of our products and services that that business was being done.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm glad I have such a disciplined panel this morning.
 Mr Smith, thank you very much for coming.  We hope that you will stay and listen to the rest of the submissions this morning, but thank you for your openness and for the apology that you've made this morning.

DESMOND SMITH: Thank you very much, Chairperson.
AVALON:  PRESENTATION

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst Mr Moosa comes from - comes forward, can I please ask individuals who have cell phones with them to switch their cell phones off.
 If I can, for the benefit of groups who've arrived since I've made my earlier comments;  if I can just repeat what I said earlier on.  
 We have a very full agenda this morning.  I ask individuals or groups speaking this morning to please be concise and summarise the relevant points they want to make, because we've all read the submissions.
 I'm going to be fairly strict.  I have said that most groupings will be getting only half an hour to make their submissions.  Fifteen minutes for presentation and 15 minutes for - Mr Moosa, will you sit, you're making feel uncomfortable - for questioning.
 I also want to make one further point.  In the discussions that lead up to these hearings, there was a feeling discomfort, carefulness on the part of the business community, particularly that this doesn't turn out to be a three day function where accusations are going to be made against one group against the other.
 I hope people who have been participating over the last two days have come to realise that this is not the intention of the hearings and I particularly have been very happy to see so little legal intervention over the last two days.
 Today, particularly we have representatives from the Trade Union Movement who will be making submissions.  We have had correspondence with different legal groupings, wanting to make, if necessary, an intervention where accusations are made.
 We have a process as far as this hearings go and I hope that legal representatives for companies here will come to me if there's an issue they want to raise so that we don't take up too much time during these hearings.
 Let's work in the spirit of the last three days - last two days.  Mr Moosa, welcome.  Do you want just introduce yourself as well as the - I think it's your son.

MOOSA MOOSA: Yes.  Mr Chairman, my name is Moosa Moosa and I am accompanied by my son Abe Moosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moosa.  Will you please stand to take the oath.  Dr Ally.

RUSSELL ALLY: The oath or the affirmation, Mr Moosa.

MOOSA MOOSA: The oath.

MOOSA MOOSA: (Duly sworn in, states).

RUSSELL ALLY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moosa, you may proceed.