THE CALL by John Walmsley (Business Report, November 21) for more nuclear energy is not helpful. Presenting selected issues to ridicule those who object is not contributing to an informed debate.
Laymen who wish to form an opinion or review their assessment have a difficult but manageable task to inform themselves, especially if they have access to the internet. Reading on the websites of the Nuclear Institute and Eskom, on the one hand, and The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, on the other, will be a good start.
If the reader wants to go further, she should know about a unique Australian publication Why vs Why: Nuclear Power, published last year. One scientist has 50 pages to explain: “Why we should say yes to nuclear power”, and another has 50 pages to state: “Why we should say no to nuclear power”. They absolutely disagree about issues such as: will it be in time to mitigate climate change, will there be enough fissionable fuel, can highly radioactive waste be managed safely, can further reactor meltdown incidents be avoided?, and more.
Having read both carefully and having cross-checked where I wasn’t sure, I have to agree with the professor who says “no”. He concludes with: “Advocating nuclear power as the response to climate change is like promoting smoking as a cure for obesity.”
Joachim Zimmer
Cape Town
Secrecy bill is already affecting economy
The arrogance of this ANC/Communist government is absolutely astonishing.
I regularly travel into Africa and Europe for business, and the passage of the secrecy bill has had a profound effect on orders from my company and a number of associated companies, for obvious reasons.
Primary among those reasons is that our embassies overseas will not be able to give geo-political nor socio-economic assessments to prospective investors without prior approval from someone in Pretoria or Luthuli House, virtually meaning future investors will be screened and selected by virtue of their alliance or acceptance of our policies. Can anyone in his right mind imagine where we’re headed should this bill become law?
North Korea today exports to only China, on China’s behest, and is totally isolated due largely to its excessive secrecy and the over-inflated egotism of its dictators. Does this sound at all familiar? With Zimbabwe so intrinsically interwoven into the current ANC mindset, the Zanufication of South Africa is virtually fait accompli. Now all that remains is the selling of all state assets to China and the hoisting of the newly modified national flag with the communist Chinese symbols incorporated into the red bar at the top.
Dave Verster
Leader and founder, Federal Democratic Party
Medical aid scare story confuses members
The lead article by Londiwe Buthelezi in Business Report on Monday, November 21, entitled “Medical scheme to be deregistered”, has created a high level of concern and confusion among our medical aid members.
The article deals with the payment of prescribed minimum benefits (PMBs) by medical schemes and says that the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) is in the process of deregistering a medical scheme that has deliberately not complied with regulation 8 of the Medical Schemes Act.
While the article does not name the scheme it intends to deregister, it does mention two medical schemes by name in the article, Sizwe being one. The article says Sizwe was mentioned in the CMS 2011 annual report as one of the schemes not complying fully with the regulations.
This has created a false perception among members that Sizwe is the scheme to be deregistered. This is not the case at all. Since January this year, Sizwe has been paying PMBs in full and is therefore not one of the schemes in contravention of section 8 and therefore not in danger of being deregistered. Prior to January, we paid PMBs according to scheme tariffs.
It is unfortunate that the article and heading have created this level of concern. We were also never approached to provide any form of commentary for the article.
As a scheme we are committed to ensuring sustainable and affordable health care for our members.
Mel Pohler
Acting Principal Officer, Sizwe Medical Scheme
Does BEE law really benefit black people?
In response to Vuyo Jack’s article questioning how broad-based black economic empowerment (BEE) benefits white people (Business Report, November 20), I thought to question whether broad-based BEE actually benefits black people. Interestingly as a black man, Vuyo believes that BEE does benefit white people, so let’s see what a white woman feels the other way round.
Broad-based BEE is a transformation tool to encourage (it is not obligatory by law, yet) workplace organisations (both private and public sector) to effect changes in the economy by increasing access to the economy for black people, black women and certain designated groups such as youth, rural communities and those living with disabilities. In many ways it is a magnificent tool which, if it had been applied and managed correctly, would have contributed greatly over the past five years to economic redistribution.
As a transformation tool, the legislation, including the resultant codes and methodologies, is by no means perfect, but it has the potential to effect change. So why then so much disillusionment with this tool?
The first fault must lie in the complexity of the tool. The codes of good practice which govern the measurement of transformation initiatives were issued in February 2007, with numerous drafting errors, interpretational queries and loopholes that allowed those not committed to empowerment to falsely claim empowerment points. The young verification industry set up to measure empowerment was not supported by the government department in charge of the industry, the Department of Trade and Industry (dti), resulting in continued inconsistencies in the application of the codes.
The second glaring fault is that, in a sense, it makes a mockery of the opportunities afforded to white business as a result of our apartheid legislation. It asks that black- and white-owned businesses be measured by the same rules and contribute the same amount of energy and resources to correcting our unequal past. This angers the owners of many small and medium-sized black businesses, who feel that the previous benefits to whites are now ignored and they must now be measured from a level playing field, even though that playing field has been skewed in the white direction for years.
Another fault has been the lack of synergy between the laws that affect government procurement. In effect, even though the broad-based BEE measurement tools were gazetted in 2007, it is only now, four years later, through the issue of the amended regulations to the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act coming into effect on December 7, that this really becomes powerful. It remains to be seen whether government departments, municipalities, public entities and so on are prepared for this impact.
There have been many success stories and some best practice in the areas of enterprise development and socio-economic development. However, for the majority of small black businesses, the benefits of these elements on the scorecard have not yet benefited them, and will doubtfully ever do so. In fact, one of the unintended consequences is that many NGOs have suffered as a result of the new legislation. Much of their traditional funding base has been halved so that the money usually received is now being allocated to the enterprise development element on the broad-based BEE scorecard to score additional points for organisations.
Another unintended consequence is that it is the poorest of the poor, those who are in rural and peri-urban areas, who find it harder to access the benefits. This is partly due to the bureaucracy of broad-based BEE and the evidence required to prove compliance; for example, a small rural crèche having to obtain “an independent competent person’s report deeming the beneficiaries to be black South Africans”. This results in organisations choosing larger urban NGOs where they can more easily access such documentation.
The legislation has had a degree of impact on black people, but I doubt it has had the desired impact. As imperfect as the tool may be, it is all we have. In the next few weeks we will see potential amendments to the act and it is anticipated it will become less voluntary and penalties will be incurred for non-compliance. It will be a strange day if this results in a black-owned company now being fined for not redressing the imbalances of apartheid.
Brigitte Brun AQRate KZN
Churches must not be identified with state
President Jacob Zuma has called on the churches to “join the government in eradicating poverty” (SABC, November 20).
Zuma knows his government can’t alleviate poverty alone. For centuries churches have been actively involved and invested heavily in what can broadly be termed “serving the needy” and “social upliftment”. Zuma knows the churches have distinct advantages over the public service.
He knows churches have dedicated workers and that the social assistance programmes of faith-based organisations are far less expensive than government programmes. Churches are not bedevilled by huge losses resulting from theft, corruption and fraud.
It would be more effective for the Zuma government to fund church projects where the money invested would be honestly handled with better returns, than more costly state programmes. The churches fundamentally are honest outfits. Also, they do not carry the heavy administrative costs of bureaucracy. But there are very suspect dimensions to Zuma’s call.
If churches become involved and identified with the government, they stand to be identified with services riddled with corruption and fall into a subtle political trap. Church involvement will be used as a public relations ploy by the ANC to show that “even the churches are with us”. The last thing churches would want is to be identified with a corrupt government where they would be unable to “blow the whistle” on corrupt cadres and expose rottenness because of the new “secrecy” bill and because they could lose generous government grants. The churches’ integrity then would be compromised.
Ron Legg
Hillcrest
Architects’ margins are shockingly high
It was with some shock and amusement that I read the letter “Discounted tenders harm public” in the Business Report of Monday, November 21.
The shock is to think at what margins architectural practices must be working if they can offer discounts of 75 percent. Imagine what they must earn at full rates.
The amusement comes from the problem that they have because the shoe is suddenly on the other foot, and now that they have to submit tenders, the tender process is supposedly flawed. These are the same architects and quantity surveyors that are quite happy to put a project out to tender to a number of contractors and will happily accept the lowest bid even if it is quite obvious that the price submitted is far too low and the contractor has “bought” the job. Because they are not the ones liable to lose money it is now okay to “pay peanuts”.
The entire tender process in the construction industry is flawed and has been for years, so all I can say is welcome to the real world. And if you are unhappy with “double standards” then next time you receive a tender that you know is far too low, reject it and recommend the contractor that has the right price to the client. As they say, “when pigs fly” that may happen.
Mark Belman
Edgemead