Cabinet members can have business interests: Muthambi

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,909
How the **** do you do your job properly if your attention is not focused on it?
If you want to be in business get the **** out of politics.

I think that's not correct. You can be passively involved in business - which is what the gist of the article is about.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
77,132
I think that's not correct. You can be passively involved in business - which is what the gist of the article is about.

Only if it's trivial and not relevant.

Also:
The handbook clearly stated executive members could not receive remuneration for any work or service other than for their performance as Cabinet members.

Nor could they use their position or information entrusted to them to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,909
Only if it's trivial and not relevant.

Also:

Why only if its trivial? This is a capitalist state. Private property laws should be enforced to the maximum.

I don't see how your quote is relevant. No one is arguing about remuneration. Investment income is not remuneration.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
77,132
Why only if its trivial? This is a capitalist state. Private property laws should be enforced to the maximum.

I don't see how your quote is relevant. No one is arguing about remuneration. Investment income is not remuneration.

The issue is about active involvement in businesses, for example directorships. Not about owning shares in listed companies.

Trivial and not relevant is the wording in the article itself, actually.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,909
The issue is about active involvement in businesses, for example directorships. Not about owning shares in listed companies.

Trivial and not relevant is the wording in the article itself, actually.

Yes but because its in the article doesn't mean that I must agree with that too ;)

That's precisely the point I am making though. Directorships are a no-no for which you would derive remuneration, as per the CoC you quoted but not passive involvement - to which your original response was no business if you are in politics, which I pointed out can't be correct.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
77,132
Yes but because its in the article doesn't mean that I must agree with that too ;)

That's precisely the point I am making though. Directorships are a no-no for which you would derive remuneration, as per the CoC you quoted but not passive involvement - to which your original response was no business if you are in politics, which I pointed out can't be correct.

Being an investor isn't the same as being in business.

That being said, no government employee should be an investor in a company doing business with governmentm except at arm's length. There's innate conflict of interest right there.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,909
Being an investor isn't the same as being in business.

That being said, no government employee should be an investor in a company doing business with governmentm except at arm's length. There's innate conflict of interest right there.

I would argue that being an investor is being in business, if your business is that of an investor.

I would hope government always deals with companies at arms length, regardless of its investors.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
77,132
I would argue that being an investor is being in business, if your business is that of an investor.

I would hope government always deals with companies at arms length, regardless of its investors.

You'd hope, but you know it doesn't happen. At all.
 

The_Unbeliever

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
103,197
You can't do two jobs at the same time properly.

Either do politics, or do business.

Or else you'll get a conflict of interest, and what will happen then?

More dead animals on a farm, that's what will happen.
 
Last edited:

TelkomUseless

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
11,266
Nothing wrong with ministers having business interests: Muthambi

There is nothing wrong with Cabinet members having business interests as long as there was no conflict of interest, according to Communications Minister Faith Muthambi

My problem with this is, yes they can have business interest as long as there are no conflicts. But we all know the cabinet/anc/government people, they don't care (there is no risk of being fired etc). So they will go out and do tenders/business with government entities even though it creates conflict.

These people don't care, they just want to ride the gravy train. If there was a possibility of them being fired, losing money when caught ... yea then go ahead. But these people just take everything... and we as tax payers have to foot the bill.

And sitting in government earning R80k pm (doesn't even include housing etc).. goodness wtf more do you want?
 

House

Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
5,482
Agreed. You should not be allowed to work as a minister while you have other business interests. This has always been the case and for good reason so. Firstly, no person can perform both as a minister and a person with interests in a business. It is quite clear which side will get more attention than the other.

Secondly, this is yet another move by the ANC to promote their scandalous thieving practices, making it more easy for the minister of (let's say communications) who has business interests in a railway company, to approach his scamming brethren minister in the department of Transport and organize multi-million rand contracts for his business.

The 'conflict of interest' clause would have worked with an honest government. Not with the ANC, who all tend to display psychopathic criminal tendencies.

This is just another breeding platform established to skim more money for themselves and I am sure the whole of the ANC government will soon jump on this bandwagon.
 

Petec

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
2,631
Secondly, this is yet another move by the ANC to promote their scandalous thieving practices, making it more easy for the minister of (let's say communications) who has business interests in a railway company, to approach his scamming brethren minister in the department of Transport and organize multi-million rand contracts for his business.

The 'conflict of interest' clause would have worked with an honest government. Not with the ANC, who all tend to display psychopathic criminal tendencies.

This is just another breeding platform established to skim more money for themselves and I am sure the whole of the ANC government will soon jump on this bandwagon.

This! And what will happen is that where possible, when contracts are messed up, taxpayer funds will be used to clean up the mess.

This is EXACTLY what goes down in places like Cuba and Russia, where the Castro and Putin family "own" 90% of the state businesses and control most of the private sector due to their restrictive access control to state contracts and business.
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
24,422
Faith Muthambi. Yeah right, we're going to believe you have honest intentions after the Hlaudi Motsoeneng fiasco ..

“The purpose of the disclosure is to ensure that the officials serve the public in a fair and transparent manner and to hold them accountable for their exercise of power,” she said on Monday.

You cannot even hold the obvious ones like Zuma accountable after the PP pointed him out, now you want us to believe officials are going to the fair & transparent? You must live in a different African than the rest of us ..
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
25,794
I have an altogether more radical view and critique.

The scourge of modern life is the professional politician. Contemporary politics attracts people who can succeed at nothing else except promising other people's money to their constituency. They are professional leeches, who seek rent off other people's labour, for themselves and their followers. As soon as the electrorate twigs that by voting for these politicians they can get their hands on the public purse, the system is fatally corrupted and on the road to collapse as certainly as night follows day.

This political pathology arises from the more basic distortion produced by the modern omnicompetent State. Caesar has become the single largest player in the economy - and that puts economic power under political control, so it is no wonder that politics attracts people who like spending other people's money to favour themselves and their cabal. The more economic power we surrender to Caeasar, the more we are saddled with venal and corrupt people attracted to politically-controlled money like flies to a jam tart.

There are many ways of analysing the political economy, historical and modern. My own view is that as along as economic power is subordinate to the State, societies regress. Historically, the king controlled commerce, and business was done at his let or leave, with Royal Charters, monopolies, usury and taxes under political control. This severely constrained economic development. It was the genius of the American Revolution that separated political and economic power, freeing people to grow their businesses and professions, and ensuring that Caesar delivered on his main charter, which is the protection and vindication of citizens' rights to life and property without force or fraud. After the Civil War, state inroads into the economy increased progressively, to the point where today America is becoming the diametric opposite of its founding vision.

There was a time when the vision of the politician was a person who had proven their ability by running a successful professional or business career outside of the State. A term in genuine public service was seen as the crown on a successful career outside of politics.

The root error of modern politics is that the State is ultimately responsible for everything including the economy. So entrenched has this view become that very few people can even imagine that things could be very different. They are ignorant of history, and unable to conceive of a radically freer political economy. This is not a question of going back, but of removing the obstacles that hinder us from going forward. We need to dismantle that vast modern State and return economic power to the people and remove it from the State.

Now you might say that such a revisioning of the State is an idealistic and therefore unrealistic pipedream. But trying to correct the current corruption with yet more laws and more State intrusion into the lives of people is asking for the impossible.

I suspect that change will occur only once the contradictions of the modern state result in wholesale economic, political and social collapse, as it inevitably will. Until that happens, we will be saddled with ever more feckless and venal professional politicians, skilled at one thing only: living off the work of others and redistributing what they confiscate from productive people to themselves and their supporters. Prepare for tougher times ahead, including war. Liberty comes at a great price because it requires responsibility, and our children will pay it again, probably in blood, because we are too soft and comfortable to do so ourselves.
 
Last edited:

kianm

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
10,532
There shall always be conflict of interest at some point. They should stick to business or politics not both ways finish n klaar
 
Top