The article, “Road tolling will provide benefits for the economy” (Business Report, May 10), refers. It is funny how you can say this will benefit the economy. Which economy are you talking about.

THE article, “Road tolling will provide benefits for the economy” (Business Report, May 10), refers. It is funny how you can say this will benefit the economy. Which economy are you talking about?

The country, a province, or the economy of the few who are in power who issue out the tenders to build and run the tolling system? It is funny how the ANC and its cronies always talk of the benefit to the economy of this or that project and how it will help the people.

How will this benefit the people of this country, especially those who are the poorest and rely on public transport, who will have to use these toll roads to get to and from their place of work? The cost of their transport will go up. The cost of goods will increase because the firms who transport these goods will have to use toll roads.

The ANC supporters seem to think that when they speak, we must all believe what they say and that we are idiots who do not have a clue. Your devote followers may buy into your tripe, but it does not mean the rest of us have to. It is a pity that they are too blind or maybe just too scared to vote for a government which could actually deliver and does not enrich themselves.

I was on a recent flight from Cape Town to Johannesburg. It was with Kulula and Helen Zille was on that flight. I bet you no ANC member of Parliament travels cattle class on the cheapest airline. I bet they all fly SAA business or first class.

Andrew Needham

Simon’s Town

Road tolling shows scrambled logic

Your article “Road tolling will provide benefits for the economy” (Business Report, May 10), exhibits scrambled logic, as port delays are caused by ports not by roads, and the SA National Roads Agency does not contribute to in-city port access roads.

Tolling of all kinds is an inefficient method of double taxation; we all pay twice.

Nick Ash

Umhlanga

Davies’ threats out of sync and laughable

Every time the government introduces new legislation it places huge focus on the fines or penalties for non-compliance. Yet, the government is unable to apply penalties for existing laws.

I doubt that Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies has ever run a business and his threats of closing businesses for non-compliance with the proposed business licences is laughable and out of sync with the government’s mantra of encouraging small business.

A friend of mine and I run our own small businesses with about 20 staff each, but both of us are hands-on and very much involved in the day-to-day running. Jail us for this ridiculous licence issue and the businesses will grind to a halt.

In my case every day’s fuel sales generate enormous taxes and levies for the government, 20 staff and their dependents enjoy an honest day’s income and customers have their fuel needs met. If I close my business, all that falls away. At present I already pay a licence to the Department of Mineral Resources to trade as a petrol retailer, which to my mind is sufficient.

I trust Davies will soon see reason.

Tony Ball

Durban

Bangladesh still not at peace with itself

Bangladesh, one of the world’s poorest nations providing riches to other countries through a system of outsourcing by utilising its cheap labour for manufacturing, has never found peace since independence.

Historically known as the “third angle of the greater Hindustan”, and created by seceding from West Pakistan, it has suffered industrial disasters aplenty of late: fires, collapsed buildings and, now, riots.

The building collapse that saw nearly 1 000 people perish, will be the country’s first test case to ensure that major international companies do not flaunt safety regulations in their quest for mass production.

International garment manufacturers have been loathe to subscribe to guarantees for safer standards, proving that the West’s use (and abuse) of cheaper labour is indicative of gross human rights abuses.

AR Modak

Johannesburg

Your always readable labour columnist Terry Bell is usually accurate and reliable in his contributions.

Your always readable labour columnist Terry Bell is usually accurate and reliable in his contributions. In your May 10 edition he was rightly critical (perhaps also cynical) in his criticism of the World Economic Forum, but then his sense of reality seemed to desert him when he observed that, in the context of globally relentless pressure on labour, the labour movement must somehow ensure, “that workers as workers are everywhere united in defence of decent wages and conditions while insisting on the provision of jobs for all”.

Total employment is ludicrously unrealistic unless the global order reverts to the pre-industrial era when all production was necessarily manual.

It is no less unrealistic to hope that the South African and global multiplicity of unions will ever get together and act together – there are far too many little empires and rivalries at stake.

Production today is more mechanised and automated, requiring fewer people to supervise it. Only a relatively small number of bright and highly trained personnel are needed to make the equipment and maintain the production flow.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to increase. So what price “jobs for all”? What jobs? There are ever shrinking opportunities for low-skilled jobs.

Particularly in South Africa where, for 19 years, the ANC government has criminally neglected education and training, as well as diminishing public perceptions of its indispensability.

The consequential reality is a continuously deepening pool of unemployables – including uselessly certificated hopefuls emerging from incompetent training bodies. At the same time, the tax base from which to draw funding for keeping the unemployed even minimally fed and housed is increasingly inadequate to keep up with the demand.

The unemployables who are lucky enough to find jobs digging holes, picking fruit or cleaning kitchens will, like it or not, be paid only what the jobs are worth, compared with replacing them with machines. That may not amount to what the trade union theorists call “decent wages”.

All the “insisting” in the world will help not one bit. The most constructive thing the unions could do is educate their members to understand that the welfare state is completely dependent on a capitalistic-type economy to generate the profits necessary for funding that welfare.

Terry Bell must surely have considerable influence among unionists, and I dearly hope that with wage discussions in the offing he will encourage unionists to convey this uncomfortable reality to their members.

At the same time perhaps Terry’s columns could apprise Business Report readers what union members’ emolument packages actually are.

Especially in government-type jobs where the take-home cash may look like inadequate pay, the public needs to be informed that when all the allowances and perks are added in the packages are often exceedingly generous.

Similarly, when earners in general choose (it is a choice) to equip their families with unaffordable cars, appliances and other domestic gadgetry funded by uncaring banks and loan sharks, then they cannot squeal for outrageous increases to cover their debts. It is called “living within one’s means”.

Tim Anderson

Newlands, Cape Town

Despite having minor interest in matters of money (only in so much as how far mine can go) and the boardroom battles of business, I find myself daily drawn to the pages of Business Report.

Despite having minor interest in matters of money (only in so much as how far mine can go) and the boardroom battles of business, I find myself daily drawn to the pages of Business Report.

It’s been an addiction that is difficult to explain and condone, except for the words. Make that journalism. So this is a compliment.

Business Report has some fine reporters and your stories often are compelling reads for even those of us beyond the neo-liberal, contemporary capitalist (or whatever you want to call it) environment in which the publication operates and probably serves. Good writing is to be admired wherever it happens.

Kudos then especially to Donwald Pressly for his sharp political cuts, Terry Bell for keeping the vital cause of workers under scrutiny, and Ann Crotty for the clarity with which she can report on sometimes clouded business and other issues. Ms Crotty is an outstanding voice on your pages, offering just that slightly alternative take outside of the humdrum closed paradigm of what capitalist business today comprises.

These writers remind people that economics are more than the punting of rising share prices and the race to outrageous profits. Thanks to all.

Melvyn Minnaar

Vredehoek

Why are transgressors not penalised?

Every time government introduces new legislation they place a huge focus on the fines/penalties for non-compliance.

Yet they are unable to apply penalties for existing laws.

I doubt that Minister Rob Davies has ever run a business and his threats of closing businesses for non compliance with the proposed business licences is laughable and totally out of sync with governments mantra of encouraging small business.

A friend of mine and myself each run our own small businesses with about 20 staff each, but both of us are very hands-on and very much involved in the day to day running.

Put us in jail for this ridiculous licence issue and the businesses will grind to a halt immediately.

In my case every day’s fuel sales generate enormous taxes/levies for the government, 20 staff and their dependents enjoy an honest day’s income and customers have their fuel needs met. Close the business and all that falls away. At present I already pay a licence to the minerals and energy department to trade as a petrol retailer which to my mind is sufficient.

I trust Davies will soon see reason.

Tony Ball

Durban

What ever happened to the taxi airline?

It is with great interest that I read that Fastjet is considering an entry into South African skies, made even more interesting when I read who the shareholders are!

But whatever happened to Santaco airlines – the much publicised flying arm of the taxi association?

It seems that once the food and drink consumed at the launch party had been digested the enthusiasm for starting and running a competitor to SAA started to wane dramatically.

Perhaps the Civil Aviation Authority can solve the mystery about Santaco airlines?

Tony Ball

Durban

Unfolding programme of transformation

After reading the article fraught with distortions I deemed it fit to respond to it lest the public be dragged into another wonderland regarding PetroSA. First of all there is no chaos at PetroSA albeit it is experiencing serious challenges. The entity has recently presented its strategic plan to the portfolio committee on energy and there was clarity in its roadmap while, of course, it conceded the challenges besetting the entity at the same time.

PetroSA is unfolding its programme of transformation and is still on the journey to become an international oil industry player! It has not yet attained that status, hence its partnership with Sinopecs of this world as an example.

It’s a daunting vision that the entity is aware of and makes no secret about that. Nevertheless it triggers curiosity as to how has Mr Pressly evaluated PetroSA’s transformation endeavour and therefore concluded it to be a failed project so prematurely? It would, in fact, be helpful if he can share with us which standards he used to conclude the failure of PetroSA’s transformation drive.

The Central Energy Fund, working under the auspices of the minister of energy has been steadfast in investigating the allegations about irregularities in PetroSA.

I have gone public and made a statement in Parliament in support of such noble efforts when a preliminary report was publicised. Why all of a sudden is there a screeching call for drastic action when evidence of diligent work is gradually emerging? What if the whole effort fails due to unwarranted haste? I trust those calling for drastic action have handled such sensitive work in their lives.

It is a pity that the honorary Lance Greyling was absent when PetroSA presented its strategic and annual performance plan a few weeks ago. He unfortunately exposes limited understanding on oil exploration including the Ghana deal. Greyling has been present a couple of times when Project Irene was presented and I do not recall his criticism of it in such manner. It maybe that he expressed his concerns but not to this extent.

The fact that he is a strong and ardent supporter of renewable energy should not blind him to other realities of the need for access to various energy sources in keeping with the country’s strategy of energy mix. Anyway, as a member of the energy committee, he can attest that the committee cannot be doubted of its eagerness to see the rolling out of clean energy programmes, albeit slowly for now.

Even if it is an allegation, Greyling needs to share his supporting facts as to the “waste on a petrol station outlet”! What is the factual basis for rejecting such an allegation?

Let me just share a few facts about global oil politics. Currently it is claimed that the oil produced by the “supermajor” companies accounts for less than 15 percent of the total world supply.

Over 80 percent of the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas are controlled by national oil companies. Of the world’s 20 largest companies, 15 are state-owned companies.

Why should South Africa take a different approach, especially when we are experiencing a fuel energy crunch, month in month out? Was the Iranian saga not instructive enough to open our eyes about our vulnerability on liquid fuels?

The recent spikes in oil and natural gas prices have propelled governments of several energy producing nations to pursue an aggressive strategy of renationalising their energy sectors. Are the reasons thereof not obvious?

According to PetroSA, it is absolutely not true that Project Irene was part of a trade-off in which Petronas would partner with it on Project Mthombo. PetroSA argues it is just a mere thumb suck from Pressly, who did not have the courtesy to put that question to the entity.

PetroSA further claims it is also not true that “the project is at a standstill”, if this refers to Project Irene. It is also not true that all projects undertaken during Yekani Tenza’s time have been frozen.

Why is there suddenly a vitriolic criticism of PetroSA? The alarmist rhetoric on “chaos” in PetroSA triggers anxiety as to the motive for such.

Once again media releases “inside information especially when it is commercially sensitive” about a state entity in the glare of competition and is expected to be regarded as acting responsibly in keeping with the spirit of patriotism.

Is there no intention to jeopardise and sabotage PetroSA’s and therefore our country’s strategic interests? In whose interests are such appalling actions? It is one thing to be opposed to fossil fuels, but another one to behave in a manner that undermines the country’s endeavours to ensure security of fuel supply.

Even if PetroSA has internal governance challenges, that does not detract from the fact that the entity has worked out a well-thought strategy and programme that aims to contribute to fuel security for our country.

The portfolio committee will stay alert to any risk or attempts that pose to undermine PetroSA both internally or through detractors and will not hesitate to ensure appropriate action is taken.

Sisa Njikelana

Chairperson of Portfolio Committee for Energy, Cape Town

Editor’s response:

BR welcomes this feedback as it serves to underscore the very essence of our report, and that is the fact that PetroSA faces serious ructions, which if unresolved, could prove destabilising to the organisation.

While one fully appreciates the progress that PetroSA has made (or wishes to make) to transform itself, it will be disingenuous of us to overlook the self-inflicted harm that now presents PetroSA with what amounts to its worst crisis of confidence to date. I thank you for your candour, and look forward to you helping us tell what must be the PetroSA story, and that is building a secure future for South Africa’s energy needs. To be sure, BR will press forward in its quest to inform, educate – and at times – irritate!

While Business Unity SA (Busa) welcomes the positive intention of the Department of Trade and Industry, to promote an environment conducive to business expansion and its purpose of ensuring compliance, Busa’s assessment of the draft Licensing of Business Bill 2013 is that it is yet another piece of legislation that overwhelms small businesses with its compliance and regulatory framework.

While Business Unity SA (Busa) welcomes the positive intention of the Department of Trade and Industry, to promote an environment conducive to business expansion and its purpose of ensuring compliance, Busa’s assessment of the draft Licensing of Business Bill 2013 is that it is yet another piece of legislation that overwhelms small businesses with its compliance and regulatory framework.

Based on consultation with its members, Busa’s view is that the current draft bill will inadvertently yield consequences that will instead retard the growth and development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and further harm a sector which is struggling with a high business failure rate. We also find the bill to be contrary to the spirit of the National Development Plan (NDP), whose objectives are to have 90 percent of all jobs by 2030 derived from the small enterprises sector.

Areas of concern to business are:

n The compliance burden is too onerous, diverting time and resources away from the core business of companies;

n The draft bill will spur illegal businesses, which can lead to increased bribery and corruption;

n This bill will heighten the risk profile of businesses, which already have to contend with challenges of access to finance;

n The accumulation of regulatory requirements raises costs of doing business;

n The bill will impose an increased administrative burden on the authorities, who already lack capacity;

n It does not give clarity of application to businesses with a national footprint;

n The bill speaks of an automatic revocation of licence, if non-compliance is found, and a business owner can only appeal once the business has been closed. This does not provide a fair process for a business to plead its case before the licence is revoked. This appears to be an administrative injustice that goes against the provisions of section 33 of the constitution.

Busa believes the draft licensing legislation should be subjected to a regulatory impact assessment analysis.

Additionally, we need to increasingly align economic and business policies with the spirit of the NDP and objectives of the State of the Nation address and deliberately nurture SMEs, instead of creating more overwhelming paperwork.

Nomaxabiso Majokweni

chief executive, Business Unity SA

Customs duties on chicken will hit poor

Your readers are likely aware of the recent application to raise customs duties on imported chicken to levels of up to 82 percent.

The result of the success of such an action will be to increase chicken prices at the tills by between 30 percent and 50 percent. With chicken being a large part of the daily diet of the majority of South Africa’s poor, this rise will devastate their lives, and force them to seek dietary substitutes.

Imports are already generally more expensive than local equivalents, but are often preferred by consumers because of the high brining levels of most local chicken, often exceeding 40 percent of the mass of the meat in the pack.

Protecting an industry that is suffering the normal consequences of economic decline, as well as its own business frailties, to the detriment of long-suffering consumers, will not only create anger in the streets, but will inevitably lead to net job losses in the wider economy while contributing to the growing problem of potentially rampant food inflation.

David Wolpert

chief executive, Association of Meat Importers and Exporters of SA, Rivonia, johannesburg.

Transformation is compatible with merit

A crucial debate is raging within the legal community in South Africa. How should the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) balance judicial transformation and merit in the appointment of judicial officers? Is it a matter of simply excluding white men and appointing black men at all costs?

With the recent JSC appointments, women have become the demographic losers and hence the appointment of judicial officers, in addition to the transformation against merit debate, has now also become a black men against white men issue.

As the debate rages on, there is palpable anger from both sides. I believe the framing of the issue as a transformation against merit debate misses the point.

Well-framed issues allow the potential for multiple views to be considered, poorly framed issues allow for limited views. For example, the transformation versus merit framing presents the positional statement that it is either transformation or merit. Such a framing leads to the conclusion that transformation is incompatible with merit.

As a black executive who is passionate about transformation in corporate South Africa, I strongly believe that merit and transformation are compatible concepts. In fact, the crucial debate must be on unpacking a value-laden concept like merit. This is important because values vary so widely among the stakeholders with a vested interest in judicial transformation.

The debate reminded me of these wise words from former US president Lyndon Johnson: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say: you are free to compete with the others and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”

Watching the recent JSC interviews in Soweto for a Constitutional Court judge, I missed leadership from the JSC that allows for a deeper engagement on the transformation of the judiciary with transformation and merit as compatible concepts.

Frank Magwegwe

Head: Middle Market Segment Retail

Our leaderless leader, President Jacob Zuma, and health union and ANC leader Fikile Majola and many others, for that matter, who contribute to the “blame” debate, got the linguistics related to meaning, wrong.

Our leaderless leader, President Jacob Zuma, and health union and ANC leader Fikile Majola and many others, for that matter, who contribute to the “blame” debate, got the linguistics related to meaning, wrong.

As a result of misinterpretation, Zuma went on record to remind Planning Minister Trevor Manuel that, “to suggest that we cannot blame apartheid for what is happening now, I think, is a mistake, to say the least”. And Majola, in a vicious diatribe and scathing attack, responded in similar vein.

If they read and interpreted Manuel’s pronouncements correctly as they were intended, they would have understood that what he in fact said was that “we cannot continue to blame apartheid”.

Read like that, as the intended and designed purpose of its meaning, the inference is that what confronted the ANC, at the beginning of its tenure 20 years ago, was a brutal system of ideas and a manner of thinking out of step with the rest of the world.

In comes the ANC, and quite correctly breaks down a rigid ideology with a replacement government redressing the imbalances of the past. So far, so good.

But over the years, at some point, maybe on former president Thabo Mbeki’s watch but definitely with Zuma’s election, the rot sets in.

Both Zuma and Majola missed the point, and Sizwe Pamla of the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union throws his lot in, making the same mistake, through lack of insight and misinterpretation of the facts.

He accuses Manuel of being disingenuous by wanting South Africans to pretend that apartheid never existed.

So what is the brouhaha all about? The former minister of finance told a public servants’ conference that, yes, apartheid was largely responsible for the inequalities that exist today but, and herein lies the quintessential essence, “the government cannot continue to blame apartheid for our failings as a state. We cannot plead ignorance or inexperience. For almost two decades, the public has been patient in the face of mediocre services. The time for change, for ruthless focus on implementation, has come.”

With those words, Manuel did not deny the legacy of apartheid nor its existence, as spun by the above trio.

All he said was that, while acknowledging the role played by apartheid, we cannot “continue” blaming apartheid. He did not deny the effects of apartheid on the South African society. Manuel was succinct and articulately perspicuous.

Mr Manuel, as much as I commend you for your criticism of the government as an extant minister, your pleas will fall on deaf ears. As long as this country is led by a venal and exclusive group of people sharing the same shameful interests, the status quo will persist.

Stan Sandler

Claremont

As one who lived in England during the Thatcher years, I would like to add comments to those already made in your publication.

As one who lived in England during the Thatcher years, I would like to add comments to those already made in your publication. Margaret Thatcher did not set out to create mass unemployment. The argument was: why should the taxpayer continue subsidising ever-increasing sums for lame-duck inefficient industries that, through the power of the unions, constantly resorted to strike action to demand higher wages.

Sadly, the working man did not understand that the leaders of unions, a number with links to the Communist Eastern bloc countries, had a different agenda, wishing to create anarchy and overthrow the Tory government. They were buoyed with success by bringing down the Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan administrations.

Scenes of strife on the streets between miners and police led to the myth that the government destroyed the coal industry. In fact, many pits had already closed.

In the shorter term there was a sharp rise in unemployment while measures curbing the power of the unions, privatising key industries and creating incentives to encourage free enterprise and investment from abroad generated more jobs. Factories output increased 7.5 percent during the Thatcher years to a level that could not be reached years later when Gordon Brown left office. Enterprise was rewarded in various ways, including the reduction of tax at 98 percent, if investment income was included, to a rate of 40 percent.

Thatcher was caring towards the less fortunate, never altering social welfare provisions in her period in office and showing a very human side, weeping tears when being informed of armed forces casualties in the Falklands War.

As rightly claimed, she was instrumental in turning the nation around with policies that subsequently produced a sounder economy, more employment and increased Britain’s standing in the world as Thatcher played an important international role alongside the Americans in easing tensions between the West and the Eastern bloc.

Finally, with regard to South Africa, she was firmly against apartheid but believed change was better brought about by dialogue and not by isolating the country through sanctions. She would never condone an armed struggle, preferring heated debate and threat of the handbag.

I concur with UK Prime Minister David Cameron that this controversial but outstanding leader deserves a ceremonial funeral if only to recognise that a cost of £10 million (R141m) is the least Britain should spend in gratitude for the billions of pound she saved the state through renegotiating, in a powerful manner, Britain’s contribution to the European community.

Richard Woolfrey

Bryanston

Drivel over Chavez was to be expected

The outpourings of drivel from the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union, the SACP, and the ANC following the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were to be expected.

President jacob Zuma described his “visionary leadership”, which is difficult to understand. Despite all its oil wealth, since Chavez came to power in 1999 the country’s infrastructure has fallen apart, crime has soared, corruption is rife, the economy in in tatters, and the currency has plummeted to all-time low values, coupled with crippling inflation.

If this is the “visionary leadership” that Zuma is admiring, then God help us.

Edward Dale

Gillitts, Durban

Expropriation Bill still has substantial flaws

The DA notes revisions to the draft Expropriation Bill, presented to the portfolio committee on public works last week by Deputy Minister Jeremy Cronin (“Value is just one factor in expropriation bill”, Business Report, April 18). However, there are a number of concerning provisions that remain and should not be included in the final version of the bill.

The Expropriations Bill was first introduced in Parliament in 2008 but was withdrawn after it was met with serious opposition. It was deemed unconstitutional in that it vested power in government officials to decide on the amount of compensation for expropriated land, rather than the courts. The new draft bill has changed this and allows the courts, rather than the state, to decide the compensation payable.

In all other aspects, the 2013 version of the bill is flawed in a number of respects:

n It extends wide-ranging powers to not only the minister of public works, but also government departments and other state entities at all three tiers of government;

n The definition of “property” continues to be very broad and can therefore be read as applying to any and all kinds of property with an economic value;

n It allows an “expropriating authority” to take up ownership and possession of property before paying any compensation;

n It states that compensation becomes payable only when its amount has been agreed with the state or decided by the courts;

n It puts great pressure on the expropriated owner to accept the compensation offered by the state, rather than remain without the benefit of either the property or its value in money; and

n While the National Development Plan recognises the vital importance of security of property rights, this bill runs the risk of undermining this.

Cronin assured us that this bill would not lead to an “orgy of expropriation”, but in its current state, the proposed legislation may very well lead to this.

Anchen Dreyer

DA SPOKESWOMAN FOR Public Works

In response to National Union of Metalworkers of SA president Cedric Gina’s statement: “We reject Trevor Manuel’s views finish and klaar” at the National Bargaining Conference. You know comrade, when Dali Tambo on his People of the South programme on SABC television hosted Jay Naidoo, a former union leader, and Zwelinzima Vavi, the current leader of Cosatu, both labour experts of the poor working class, requested the politicians and government employees to stop blaming apartheid for their repeated failures, the whole country was silent.

In response to National Union of Metalworkers of SA president Cedric Gina’s statement: “We reject Trevor Manuel’s views finish and klaar” at the National Bargaining Conference. You know comrade, when Dali Tambo on his People of the South programme on SABC television hosted Jay Naidoo, a former union leader, and Zwelinzima Vavi, the current leader of Cosatu, both labour experts of the poor working class, requested the politicians and government employees to stop blaming apartheid for their repeated failures, the whole country was silent.

However, when the “yellow” legend and mastermind Manuel dishes out the very same truth with 20 years of accumulated evidence, the corrupt, incompetent politicians and their sidekicks are barking like toothless dogs to confuse their poor voters.

On your point of racism it seems that as a union leader you still do not understand how some of our corrupt politicians have created a new dynamism of racism. Let me educate you with an example: under apartheid we correctly blamed the white oppressors for dividing black people and Indians.

Presently, in our democratic country, corrupt black politicians together with corrupt Indian leaders are awarding themselves inflated tenders worth billions of the taxpayers’ money and they have failed to deliver to the people. Now you cannot blame that on apartheid, finish and klaar.

Furthermore, in many instances corrupt politically connected Indians sitting on the interview panel in government, ensure that other competent, righteous Indians do not get appointed, to protect their own roguish habits. Of course, their black bosses and partners in crime just turn a blind eye. Now you cannot blame that on apartheid, finish and klaar.

Yes, apartheid has harmed our country and it is still obvious in the segregation of land, townships and suburbs that affects the working class’s convenience to commute to work.

However, comrade Gina, if we did not lose about R25 billion annually through poor service delivery, tender rigging and other forms of corruption we could have saved approximately R500bn or more in the past 20 years, which could have contributed to at least 1 million more low-cost houses, better roads network and affordable public transport for the poor and unemployed. Now this cannot be blamed on apartheid, finish and klaar.

Many Durban residents have directly experienced the impact of a few corrupt, lazy, and incompetent local government councillors and the non-co-operation of some of the eThekwini municipality’s officials. To date there are councillors and officials who do not answer their phones or reply to their e-mails and they cannot use their computers provided by the council at the expense of the ratepayers. They also choose not to understand the needs of our people.

They are arrogant and do not care because they are guaranteed positions by their corrupt political bosses. In essence, they get paid to be “deaf, blind and voiceless” so that some of our politically connected leaders can “legally steal” from the ratepayers.

Now this cannot be blamed on apartheid, finish and klaar.

I suggest that instead of fighting Manuel, fight the Chinese who have hogged and closed down our clothing and textile industry.

Moving forward, foolish corrupt leaders should stop convincing yourselves that you can deceive millions of our poor, law-abiding voters. We have caught you with your hands in the cookie jar, finish and klaar.

Ashnie Bisoonpersad

VIA E-MAIL