IN QUESTIONING whether black captains of industry can turn around the declining manufacturing sector, Tumelo Chipfupa (Business Report, June 10) fails to inquire why this sector is in decline.
Part of the answer lies overseas. Cheaper production in India and China has played havoc with a range of local manufacturing from ceramics, shoes, textiles to electronics. And that contagion is not confined to South Africa.
Manufacturing industries are also in decline in Victoria and New South Wales in Australia. Trade union inflexibility and strikes account for industrial stagnation and decline both here and in Australia.
But in South Africa there is an additional factor which is not only unique to this country but which attempts to ignore a primary historical experience: the elevation of individuals to the ranks of industry captains based purely on race. Historically, this is a no-brainer.
While governments can preside over conditions that create equal opportunities, they cannot ordain equal outcomes. Initiative and enterprise cannot be legislated. They are individual traits which have resulted not only in great inventions but in sustained production and benefit to society.
The foundations of England’s industrial revolution were laid 250 years before the era itself. The English gentry adopted the habit of turning their younger sons out of the manor house to seek their fortunes as apprentices to merchants and craftsmen in the towns.
The backbone of South Africa’s industry and manufacturing was established between the two world wars. Individuals with a passion for initiative and enterprise such as Ernest Oppenheimer, Jan van Eck and Hendrik van der Byl founded industries without which this country would have remained something of a backwater with limited opportunity. Their success was based on perseverance and application. Obsession with skin pigmentation has increasingly hobbled progress and service delivery since 1994. Cosmetic transformation does not work and can never work. History, as life’s teacher, has demonstrated that – particularly in Africa.
Duncan Du Bois
Bluff, Durban
Stifled enterprise and rotten education
The sad and serious issue of unemployment in South Africa and all the negative ramifications thereof, are a constant source of discussion in political, business, religious and social circles.
As I understand things, the population of South Africa is approximately 55 million of which approximately 25 percent (even 30 percent is mooted) are unemployed. Thus there is a staggering number of approximately 14 million people out of work. No country or society can withstand such a huge number unemployed and eventually the load of the unemployed must erode the very structure of the country and society with dire consequences for all.
The government talks loftily about work creation, however, not much is apparent in practice. The government needs a complete rethink.
A recent visit to Saldhana reminded me of the vast quantities of iron ore leaving South Africa, mainly headed for the Far East, only to be bought back in the form of motor cars, refrigerators, etc.
The way forward for government is for South Africa to follow the example of China, Japan and Korea and become a major manufacturing country, to stop exporting our iron ore (and coal) and to use it here in the country.
Further, South Africa’s state education system is letting the country down. I recently interviewed a young girl for a position in a business that deals with fractions of a whole. During the discussion it became apparent that she did not know the difference between a half and a quarter. I was too afraid to delve into decimals as fractions.
The government needs a completely new and radical approach to work creation. A good start would be for President Jacob Zuma to do the country a favour and offer the position of Minister of Basic Education to Helen Zille and the position as head of Eskom to Roger Toms.
Kevin Meineke
Hout Bay, Cape Town
Why state owned enterprises are costly
Two questions come to mind when thinking about how the leadership of our state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has so far proved extraordinarily expensive: First, although it is customary to appoint a board and a chairman, it is fair to ask if these appendages are necessarily conducive towards establishing an effective organisation? In theory, board members should provide a range of relevant expertise and experience that can usefully add to the knowledge and judgment of the chief executive and chief financial officer.
The board chairman is normally appointed from among the board members. Of course, for the chief executive and chief financial officer to do their work properly it is essential that none of the board members, including the chairman, carries managerial or executive authority.
Unfortunately, when one looks at the composition of our SOE boards it is clear that in most cases they are merely sinecures for party pals. Such knowledge and experience as they may have are rarely based on relevant industry knowledge.
In fact, members’ efforts to make their points in or out of board meetings are frequently obstructive to the chief executive’s work, and if any board members have, or think they have, executive authority then the chief executive’s own authority is compromised, the more so if a hopelessly under-informed cabinet minister contributes further to the interference.
The second question arises when we consider the chief executive himself or herself. If we look at the outrageously costly procession of chairmen and chief executives who’ve received golden boots we have to ask who peruses applicants’ CVs and who draws up their contracts?
Unless a CV is fictitious (fairly easy to establish) it should be immediately apparent if the candidate has the appropriate qualifications, industry knowledge and leadership capability to fill the post. It is all too obvious that whoever recommends or makes these top appointments needs to understand that engineering-based enterprises such as Eskom require their important executives to have deep technical and practical knowledge of the business.
Tim Anderson
Newlands