Icasa rejects change to BEE internet rules

[icyrus]

This is about control firstly. Enrichment and nepotism are fringe benefits.

 

[Dastrix]

This is about control firstly. Enrichment and nepotism are fringe benefits.

Exactly! The gauvamint is still in and will never get out of "Freedom fighter" mode, everything they do is to prevent apartheid from resurfacing (like that would ever happen in reality - in their minds is another story) instead of uplifting a nation that desperately needs it!

 

[Stephen]

I hope the international community sees that the post-apartheid post-1994 South Africa is as racist as it was before 1994. It's high time that sanctions are implemented against South Africa for their continual human rights abuses. All people are equal (whites) , but some are more equal than others (all non-whites).

I will not do business with a company that is BEE compliant. Sorry

Brilliant comment, I do something similar, i try not to support any company who is BEE or practices AA. Even if i have to pay a little more.

 

[McGuywer]

This is the worst idea. How can this happen? South Africa - Alive with possibilities.....

Yeah right.

I can't even remember how it was before 1994. Now, I still have to live with this?
BEE is the worst worst thing that could happen. SA is moving in the wrong direction! This isn't what Mr. Nelson Mandela wanted for SA to become. He was a great president that gave to the pour and initiated fundraisers etc.

Now BEE is the "IN" thing.
How would you feel to think everyday - Mmmm. Am I here on merits or am I here because they need me to be a BEE Compliant company? That would drive me insane to always wonder.

But when money talks... Everyone listen.

BEE is only selling your soul for money. Your pride.

But well, what can we really do about it?!

 

[sox63]

I hope the international community sees that the post-apartheid post-1994 South Africa is as racist as it was before 1994. It's high time that sanctions are implemented against South Africa for their continual human rights abuses. All people are equal (whites) , but some are more equal than others (all non-whites).

I will not do business with a company that is BEE compliant. Sorry

Hate to break it to you, but most mainstream companies are BBBEE compliant, I think you are saying that you wont do business with Black owned businesses.

 

[Moederloos]

I think you are saying that you wont do business with Black owned businesses.

Why? I have no issue dealing with a black-owned business - providing it was not a BEE "gimme".

 

[Wyzak]

Hate to break it to you, but most mainstream companies are BBBEE compliant, I think you are saying that you wont do business with Black owned businesses.

I take serious offense when companies flaunt their BEE/EE/AA/BBBEE/GEAR/ASGISA/whatever_else_you_want_call_it status and then expect me to do business with them just because of the number of historically disadvantaged workers in their workforce. I avoid such companies as much as humanly possible.

 

[sox63]

I take serious offense when companies flaunt their BEE/EE/AA/BBBEE/GEAR/ASGISA/whatever_else_you_want_call_it status and then expect me to do business with them just because of the number of historically disadvantaged workers in their workforce. I avoid such companies as much as humanly possible.

The reason companies do that is becuase customers are looking for it, procurement spend on BEE companies is a major point on the scorecard, and most companies averse to selling equity, try to spend a lot of their money on BEE companies to help their own points.

Something that seems to not be important to you, but most companies out there look for it.

 

[Ou grote]

The reason companies do that is becuase customers are looking for it, procurement spend on BEE companies is a major point on the scorecard, and most companies averse to selling equity, try to spend a lot of their money on BEE companies to help their own points.

Something that seems to not be important to you, but most companies out there look for it.

We do, even if you want to use a travel agency or car rental place.
We changed to the most BEE ones.

 

[Syndyre]

The reason companies do that is becuase customers are looking for it, procurement spend on BEE companies is a major point on the scorecard, and most companies averse to selling equity, try to spend a lot of their money on BEE companies to help their own points.

Something that seems to not be important to you, but most companies out there look for it.

Yeah it makes sense to do it, you effectively shift the burden on to somebody else. Doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the policy though.

 

[Chevron]

Something that seems to not be important to you, but most companies out there look for it.

I'd think the ability to do the required task would be the most important thing.

 

[sox63]

I'd think the ability to do the required task would be the most important thing.

I was responding to why Wyzak hears the BEE story a lot. The completion of the task is obviously the most important thing. The rest is bonus.

 

[Tassidar]

I was responding to why Wyzak hears the BEE story a lot. The completion of the task is obviously the most important thing. The rest is bonus.

Please tell that to Eskom, where the BBBEE score is the first requirement, and the ability to complete the task is a bonus. If you doubt this, then look at the whole coal fiasco. Also, the statement by the director that Eskom needs to employ two managers a week and "I am adamant that one of them will be a black female".

Government policy is NOT about the ability to complete the task, it is solely about BEE (read enrichment of ANC cronies), because BEE has STUFF ALL to do with the upliftment of previously disadvantaged people. If you wanted to do that, you would create an environment that rewarded HARD WORK, and created an environment CONDUCIVE TO ENCOURAGING INVESTMENT in the country - something that BEE does the opposite of.

I for one, am sick and tired of hearing the BEE story and how it benefits us, when I look at South Africa becoming less and less competitive, while a small number of fatcats get rich. BEE is a corrupt scam and nothing more!!!

Oh yeah, and BEE is completely racist, both from the point of view that it discriminates against whites, and from the point of view that it tells blacks that they are too useless to get rich without government help, hence the fact that there is no sunset clause on BEE. IOW: BEE is saying that blacks will never be able to compete on an equal footing, hence my statement.

It's time to end the discrimination in this country, and stand up for pure meritocracy and the recognition of hard work. That is the only way we can truly empower the citizens of this country, both black and white.

 

[sox63]

Please tell that to Eskom, where the BBBEE score is the first requirement, and the ability to complete the task is a bonus. If you doubt this, then look at the whole coal fiasco. Also, the statement by the director that Eskom needs to employ two managers a week and "I am adamant that one of them will be a black female".

I can see you are quite emotional about this, but anyone that deals with Eskom on a daily basis would tell you otherwise. And I mean that from a supplier perspective, as Wyzak was talking about.

Government policy is NOT about the ability to complete the task, it is solely about BEE (read enrichment of ANC cronies), because BEE has STUFF ALL to do with the upliftment of previously disadvantaged people. If you wanted to do that, you would create an environment that rewarded HARD WORK, and created an environment CONDUCIVE TO ENCOURAGING INVESTMENT in the country - something that BEE does the opposite of.

If you look at the big players within Public Sector tenders (DD, BCX, Datacentrix, etc in ICT), they are ALL white owned, so as to who really benefits with BEE, we could bebate the whole day.

I for one, am sick and tired of hearing the BEE story and how it benefits us, when I look at South Africa becoming less and less competitive, while a small number of fatcats get rich. BEE is a corrupt scam and nothing more!!!

Oh yeah, and BEE is completely racist, both from the point of view that it discriminates against whites, and from the point of view that it tells blacks that they are too useless to get rich without government help, hence the fact that there is no sunset clause on BEE. IOW: BEE is saying that blacks will never be able to compete on an equal footing, hence my statement.

It's time to end the discrimination in this country, and stand up for pure meritocracy and the recognition of hard work. That is the only way we can truly empower the citizens of this country, both black and white.

Your concern on the above is shared by many, including myself.

 

[Tassidar]

I can see you are quite emotional about this, but anyone that deals with Eskom on a daily basis would tell you otherwise. And I mean that from a supplier perspective, as Wyzak was talking about.

As a company tendering for supplier status to Eskom, my experience has been that they are far more interested in BEE status than in what we have to offer. We spent far more time preparing our BBBEE information than we did presenting to Eskom.

As for the statement by the director, my point still stands: BEE over capability. Perhaps now that it is in such trouble, Eskom's policy is changing, but not a second too late, and only when it is the only possible way to avoid complete disaster.

If you look at the big players within Public Sector tenders (DD, BCX, Datacentrix, etc in ICT), they are ALL white owned, so as to who really benefits with BEE, we could bebate the whole day.

So ICASA's policy is that no one should benefit? Including the entire population of South Africa?

Thanks for the reply SOX, I always find it interesting debating with you.

 

[sox63]

As a company tendering for supplier status to Eskom, my experience has been that they are far more interested in BEE status than in what we have to offer. We spent far more time preparing our BBBEE information than we did presenting to Eskom.

As for the statement by the director, my point still stands: BEE over capability. Perhaps now that it is in such trouble, Eskom's policy is changing, but not a second too late, and only when it is the only possible way to avoid complete disaster.

Like you, I spend a lot of time responding to tenders, and have to disagree with you (slightly) on this point. You will generally find the more complex a solution they are looking for, the less BEE counts to the decision. On some of the biggest tenders as little as 5-10 points of the 100. And the biggest point allocation goes to solution, ability to deliver and obviously cost, usually 60-70 points for solution and ability and the rest for pricing.

On the smaller stuff, like supply and delivery of run rate stuff like desktops and laptops, the opposite is true, where cost is biggest, then BEE. They always instruct what they are looking for so points for solution and ability do not count for much.

I'm sure you would agree that in ICT there is stuff that every man and his dog can do, and there is stuff that only a select few can do. In fact I have come to recognise if a tender was written with a certain supplier in mind.

So ICASA's policy is that no one should benefit? Including the entire population of South Africa?

The ICASA decision maybe in response to what I mentioned earlier about the major players, they are still white owned. So awarding a WiMAX license to a smaller guy can develop them to compete, in an field where the barriers to entry are considerably high. IMO, time will tell if it will work. My guess is that the big guys will form Joint ventures with smaller companies to get a piece of the action.

 

[RogueTr00per]

Chinese South Africans

Hopefully not too off topic, but for those of you thinking that just anyone that happens to be of Chinese origin qualifies for BEE, this is for you. Also, if you are wondering why there isn't just an 'Asian' category for Indians and Chinese together, you can ask the minister(s) involved or responsible for that because in the draft employment equity legislation, there was an 'Asian' category which became 'Indian' in the 1998 gazetted act.

Released at 10h30 on Wednesday 18 June 2008

High Court rules in favour of Chinese South Africans

IN a landmark judgement issued in Pretoria today, 18 June 2008, the High Court ruled that South African citizens of Chinese descent, numbering less than 10 000, automatically qualify for the full benefits in terms of the country's Employment Equity and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment legislation.

This ruling is the culmination of an eight year struggle by the Chinese Association of South Africa (CASA) to obtain clarity from government as to whether Chinese South Africans, who were classified as "coloured" during the apartheid era, qualified for the benefits of the Employment Equity Act (EE Act) and the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (BBBEE Act).

The anomaly first arose with the inception of the EE Act in December 1999, which defines "black people" as a generic term for "Africans, Coloureds and Indians". The same definition was subsequently used in the BBBEE Act which came into operation in April 2004.

"As Chinese South Africans we were officially classified as 'coloured' during the apartheid era and suffered under the same discriminatory laws prior to 1994. The logical inference was thus that Chinese South Africans would automatically qualify for the same benefits afforded to the "Coloured" group, post 1994," says CASA's Chairperson, Patrick Chong.

However, this was not the case and the Chinese South Africans suffered a second round of unfair discrimination by not being sure of their status under the two Acts.

"Although the Acts did not specifically exclude Chinese South Africans, the fact that they were not mentioned by name led to a lot of confusion in the marketplace," says George van Niekerk, a director of the law firm, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, who represented CASA.

"For example, one commercial bank would, given the historical considerations, classify Chinese South Africans as 'black' for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act and the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act whereas another commercial bank declined to do so. The net result was that Chinese South Africans were never sure of their status," says van Niekerk.

CASA has been engaging government since 2000 in order to seek clarity on the status of Chinese South Africans. Amongst other attempts, CASA made formal representations to Parliament's Labour Portfolio Committee in 2004.

In November 2004, the Minister of Labour, whilst answering questions in the National Council of Provinces, indicated that Chinese South Africans "have the right to seek clarity or legal recourse via our courts" as to whether they should be included within the ambit of the Employment Equity legislation.

"It was never CASA's intention to take the matter to the Court, but as government was unable - in the course of eight years - to provide a definitive answer as to the community's status, we had no other option," says Chong.

"In June 2006, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs wrote to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, demanding clarity regarding the classification status of Chinese South Africans," says van Niekerk.

This did not yield any satisfactory response and CASA had no other choice but to launch a High Court application on 20 December 2007, citing all three Ministers as respondents.

Although all three Ministers had originally filed a notice to oppose CASA's application in January 2008, the government eventually conceded the merits of the matter in April 2008. It subsequently accepted liability to pay CASA's legal costs as well.

In his ruling today (Wednesday, 18 June 2008), Justice Pretorius indicated that Chinese South Africans fell within the ambit of the definition of "black people" in both the Employment Equity Act and the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act.

Representing CASA in court was the well-known human rights lawyer, Adv George Bizos SC, assisted by Adv Alfred Cockrell.

"Justice has now been served for Chinese South Africans - one of the country's most politically marginalised communities," says van Niekerk.

"The Chinese community in South Africa would like to make use of this new found freedom to create even more jobs for the unemployed," says Chong.

"Education has always been very important to the community and there is a very strong work ethic which typifies the community.

"Despite the fact that our children can work anywhere else in the world, they prefer to remain in South Africa and contribute towards building the economy," he says.

Ends

MEDIA QUERIES AND INTERVIEWS:

* Patrick Chong, Chairperson of CASA, Cell 083 306 9097

* Willem van der Colff, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Cell 082 411 1733
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Released by Muriel Hau-Yoon, Afrikom on behalf of the Chinese Association of South Africa
Afrikom Strategic Communications, 304 De Oude Schuur, 120 Bree Street, Cape Town, 8001
Tel: (021) 423-7263 iFeksi: (021) 422-2346 e-pos: [email protected]

And for the record I don't think that BEE is the best way to redress the injustices of the past, and neither does Patrick Chong/CASA.

I would say that it's doing more harm than good. Gov should have put money into skills development, education and found other ways of uplifting the disenfranchised without alienating the white citizens in the country to the extent that they seem to be doing. BEE in its current form is made an even more bitter pill to swallow when we see government (or affiliated) fat-cats enriching themselves at the expense of the masses.

I support what BEE is trying to achieve but I fear it is falling horribly short of the mark.