Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-12

JOHAN RUPERT: Sorry, Commissioner, but your letters said that you would submit the question before hand.  I've got to be very careful what I answer.  It is my second language.  I'm sorry.

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

JOHAN RUPERT: Thank you.

MR GLAMINI: Mine is - goes back to what the Arch Bishop said yesterday when he opened the session.  Amongst other things he made an appeal for contribution towards the President fund from which reparations are going to be implemented.
 I notice amongst the people who testified yesterday, nobody ever responded to that.  I'm not sure what - perhaps people thought if I said that I've got something to contribute it would be admitting guilt and in which 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 are - we need t know.

JOHAN RUPERT: When my father started the company it couldn't afford to pay him, so he had a two and half percent management fee.  When it started making money and this was before I had any say in it, he waved that, but with the provider 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: Mr Rupert, I'm going to speak in your first language.  I trust this is your first language since we are now speaking Afrikaans.
 You can't speak on behalf of your father, but it is certainly interesting - or it was certainly interesting that he said at the Second Economic People's Congress or "Volkskongres" 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 of 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 bases on achievement."  Furthermore
 "There's a re-orientation 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."
The question is, how does that relate to this philosophy which actually (indistinct - problems with mike) and the theme which later became Apartheid?

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?
 Their answer was that initially, based on fear, they felt that separate, but equal could work.  That 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.  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.
 I'm sure if they had 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 met soos ek hom ken nie".
 It doesn't tally.  Sorry.

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

JOHAN RUPERT: ;  I don't mix with your predecessors.

MR MALAN: ... which speaks somewhat as corroboration to your position, but my question goes further than that and this relates to this question of benefitting, of patronage, of favouritism, which you've been denying.
 But at the same time my impression of you and also through your submission and your father's, is this - probably best described with loyal resistance.  Knowing where your roots are, still identifying with the 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 have a look at the future.  The question is;  is it possible to not have a kind of favouritism in a situation where you (indistinct) power?
 Is it possible for the Government, for any Government not to favour what they perceive to be closer than them, than what is not?
 It's not really a problem at the moment, because we agreed on the need for affirmative action policies, for empowerment policies or whatever you want to call it.  Training and this will remain a subject of debate, but the question is will it end when it's not necessary any more?
 My question it more fundamental than simply one of a moral positioning.  What is your view about that?

JOHAN RUPERT: I'm afraid that patronage and the interaction and begging for favouritism 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 speaks Afrikaans, yes, absolutely still identify.
 The - how can it be stopped?  Transparency.  If things are transparent, then the population can decide whether it's warrant at favouritism or not.
 We - I believe that there's a fear amongst Whites today that because of what they see and believe that they've done in the past;  the same will be done to them.  That is a fear.  There is 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's total transparency.  Then the voters can decide whether they'll tolerate it or not.

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

CHAIRPERSON: (indistinct - not into mike - lot of background noises)

<UNKNOWN>: If you carefully read what we have in our document it's all a question of relativity.  We start off by saying that our structures were not used for favouritism ...
POWER FAILURE