Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-12

JOHAN RUPERT: Loyal resistance I would say.  All my adult life I pleaded for full majority rule, not a limited franchise and I'm on record as doing so.
 Now, what happened to Afrikaners who disagreed with the systems - system?  What did we have to face?  I'm afraid, not unlike certain signs today, after being voted in power for quite a long time, the Nationalist Party viewed themselves as the permanent Government and then the critical distinction between Government and State disappeared.
 Therefore any attacks on the Nationalist Party's racial policies became viewed as attacks on the state.  Helped by some newspapers, the SABC and other influential opinion forming bodies, any opponents of racial discrimination were therefore quickly vilified as unpatriotic liberals and of all things, Mr Kronen will laugh, ...(tape ends)

JOHAN RUPERT: ... of communist.  I've been called a communist probably more often than you.  Yes.  For those in the room who do not believe the veracity of the attacks on our family, I have files and files full of newspaper clippings that I'll be glad to show you if you contact me in Stellenbosch.
 On the outside, on the other hand, we were attacked as racist fascists.  Now, during these attacks - despite these attacks, we remained what is now called a profile of patriotic bourgeoisie, practising "lojale verset."
 We tried to build progress through partnership.  Now, the most remarkable thing is that the same people, the same executives, working for Rembrandt doing the very same things, generated a return on investment outside South Africa of some 50 percent higher than inside our own country.
 Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, we've only once dealt with the South African Government or state and I did it against my father's wishes.  That was when the establishment of the cellular telephony in South Africa a couple of years ago.
 I believed that it was a fully transparent process and as Mrs Marcell Golding and Johnny Copeland can attest to, that led to Rembrandt helping their unions pension funds to make hundreds of millions of rands through an empowerment deal.
 Now, we did not export raw materials or finished products out of South Africa, we've not been accused of benefitting or of doing any specific deal with the state or Government and that R3600,00 per month that we pay our floor sweepers in our Rembrandt factories;  that's more than maths teachers in high schools.
 To summarise, we believe that we've had no sweetheart deals, no sweat shot - shop labour in the Rembrandt group, no regular tri-protection and yet substantially higher returns on investment outside the country than inside in the same investment fields by the same management.
 Admitting that we hadn't done enough, I fully admit that, I still fail to understand those who say that we've benefitted from Apartheid.  The sad contrary is true.  Had the founders of the company immigrated, they would have had far superior returns on their investment.
 South Africa, however, would have lost jobs, taxes and foreign exchange.  The two point eight billion rand per year that South Africa earns out of Richmond would not have materialised.
 However these broad types of statements are still being made without getting specific.  We heard it yesterday and I'm sorry to get personal, but another example of these accusations is the statements made by various people that Dr Rupert said quote "We have to find a solution that won't end up giving us one man one vote" unquote.
 There was a little word left out.  I have the transcript of the speech.  The word that was left out was "once".  What he said was "We have to find a solution that won't end up giving us one man one vote once."
 I think you'll agree that there's a vast difference in using that to try and prove your statements.
 Now, macarthiusm has entered the English language as a catch or word used to denigrate those who allegedly make fraudulent accusations against others.  It's ironical that this term can now be used to aptly describe statements made recently.
 In a country with massive unemployment problems, with large deficits before borrowing and nagging foreign exchange reserves, I would like to say that we've done our best for the country, economically.
 Finally, it was right here in Johannesburg that a very prominent member of the previous Government said the following to me in front of one of South Africa's most eminent and powerful businessmen.
 "Rembrandt is not big.  We will break you."  More ominously, "Politics is a cut throat business and I mean that literally."
 Now, despite all of the above, did we do enough to fight Apartheid?  Did we do enough as the BMF have correctly said, to advance Black management?  No.
 At the time we certainly thought we did.  In retrospect one could never have done enough.  I was fortunate enough to have met the late Steve Biko in the early 1970's when he was the head of SASO.  As an Afrikaner the immorality of his and other murders will forever live with me as a permanent reminder of the cruelty of man to man as perpetrated during the evil years of Apartheid and I hope and pray that our fellow citizens will forgive us. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rupert.  Dr Boraine?