In Cyril we trust
If Cyril Ramaphosa makes himself available for the presidency, it could be the best thing ever to happen to the African National Congress and the country.
Unlike Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, he has tasted the mood of both business and labour by being a union and business leader.
As he has withdrawn from politics and never shown any allegiance to the Mbeki or Jacob Zuma camps, his credentials are overwhelming. He has been associated with few, if any, scandals, and is supported by statesmen of unquestionable integrity like Mandela and Desmond Tutu.
If we want to save the country from division, ANC branches should be encouraged to nominate him come 2007. A seasoned and a veteran politician who has always respected the traditions and culture of the ANC, he will know how to respond if he is deployed by the rank and file. — Luther Lebelo, Midrand
People have started debating the likelihood of Ramaphosa taking over from Mbeki. But how much hope should we invest in him?
He did pave the way for our democracy at Codesa and was general secretary of National Union of Mineworkers and the ANC, but things have changed drastically since then.
He has never been an MP, and so cannot understand the complexities of government.
Many conclude from his past relations with the Congress of South African Trade Unions that he could mediate between capitalists and socialists.
But he is not the same man who fought for the poor in the 1980s. He left his followers in the lurch by becoming one of the top three beneficiaries of black economic empowerment. There is no reason to think he still understands workers.
Given the social ills created by capitalism in South Africa, there will be more protests and unrest if the presidency falls into his hands. — Phillimon Mnisi, Johannesburg
Israel’s sudden respect for UN
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon has had one unintended positive consequence: the supporters of this Zionist aggression have woken up to the sanctity of United Nations resolutions, which require Hizbullah to be disarmed and respect for internationally recognised boundaries. Even Joel Pollak, Tony Leon’s speechwriter, has made this discovery (Letters, July 28).
The legitimate expectation is that they will use this newfound insight to call for Israel’s withdrawal from all the occupied territories of Palestine, in keeping with UN resolutions, and respect the internationally recognised boundaries of Palestine. — Rasimeni Manjezi, Cape Town
I was not surprised to read the flurry of letters condemning your “Orgy of destruction” editorial. From The Passion of the Christ to the Muhammad cartoon, the M&G has always fearlessly engendered debate about sensitive issues.
Once again there is a threat to withdraw advertising support, and the charge of anti-Semitism is conveniently trotted out. No doubt you will weather this storm, and continue to be as brave and passionate as you have always been, and as we expect you to be. — Gerhard Hope, Henley-on-Klip
People should not fool themselves into thinking that the Lebanese outrage is about the capture of Israeli soldiers. Israel itself invented the tactic of prisoner exchange in the early 1990s, which its courts legitimised. Israel also holds more than 9 000 Palestinians indefinitely without trial, including 30% of elected Palestinian representatives.
People should also not fool themselves that Israel wanted to protect civilian lives by dropping leaflets. Besides the impossibility of evacuating 800 000 people from southern Lebanon, roads and bridges around villages and out of the south were systematically destroyed to stop people escaping.
Israel was established and has existed purely through force and by instilling fear. We need to move towards an inclusive vision, and stop fetishising a Jewish ethnic state built on the ruins of other people’s lives. — M Toffah, Johannesburg
We are appalled at the vitriol and threats directed against the M&G (Letters, July 28), the sole bastion of independent journalism in South Africa. Supporters of Israel should realise they will not win their case through threats, but rather by influencing that country to behave according to civilised norms. — Musa Manzini, Patricia Mogotsi, Sibu Buthelezi, Ann Walker, Cape Town
Many of your letter writers uncompromisingly support Israel’s disproportionate retaliation against Hizbullah, Hamas, the Lebanese and the Palestinians. How they expect this course of action to bring peace escapes me. The vicious cycle will continue until, like the apartheid regime, the Israelis eventually have to negotiate with the people’s legitimate representatives. — Ikhraam Osman, Somerset West
The difference between the aggression of Hizbollah and Israel is that the former uses guerrilla tactics, while the latter brazenly parades its state terrorism for the BBC and CNN cameras as “civilised”. — Neil Luyt, Johannesburg
We endorse the call by concerned South African Jews published in the M&G last week. One is not an anti-Semite if one disagrees with Israel’s attack on Lebanon, as so many South African Jews appear to believe.
While we understand the need for Israel to protect itself, punishment of innocent civilians because they occupy the same space as Hizbullah is not a morally acceptable response. We honour the courage of those who spoke up. — Nicholas and Nicole Jaff
We wish to add our names to the petition of protest by South African Jews who do not “endorse this aggression”. We believe that the hope for the survival and fulfilment of all peoples lies not in conflict but in having the courage and patience to listen deeply to one another and find their common humanity. — Maxine Fine, James Pendlebury, Katy Pendlebury
Someone is lying about the MEEC
In last week’s Mail & Guardian, Philip Dexter is reported to have been brought to Mpumalanga to rescue the Mpumalanga Economic Empowerment Corporation (MEEC), after its former CEO awarded R452-million in loans to friends and family.
If the public is being told that the reason for Dexter being brought to the MEEC was because of R452-million that was awarded to family and the bankruptcy of the organisation, somebody is telling a lie.
I was chief accounting officer of the MEEC for five years and I can talk with authority about the status of the institution during my tenure.
A quick examination of annual reports in the five years when I was CEO will show that the loans the organisation awarded do not total even half that amount.
Secondly, I must state that no relative of mine has benefited from the MEEC’s lending programme, neither were they employed by me at MEEC. No investigation conducted in this life nor in the hereafter will show this.
I am aware that this figure came from the African Eye News Service, whose earlier allegations about the MEEC were proved incorrect, leading to an apology by an editor of a national publication.
The root cause of problems in Mpumalanga is deeper than some people would like us to believe. It includes such issues as the quality of leadership and of governance, self-interest and factionalism. Crucifying individuals will not resolve these challenges. — Ernest Khosa
Tip of the iceberg
It is ironic that so few boards of trustees and retirement fund members have questioned the alacrity with which Alexander Forbes agreed to repay R368-million of bulking profits to retirement funds it administers.
Almost every large “professional” administrator, private and insured, uses bulking up to make profits that are not transparently returned to members, even though members generate them. Candidly, cash banking accounts are an infinitesimally small portion of the total assets under management in South Africa’s retirement funding industry.
Let’s not be naive: most “asset managers” touting “investment solutions” — from unitised, multi-manager through index funds and insured “smooth bonus” portfolios — enjoy incredible wealth, not just through their self-proclaimed prowess, but by repricing underlying investments.
Let’s imagine the man in the street can buy unit trusts in the market at a 1% management fee and cost. These are available to bulked up multi-managers for 0,25% or less, besides commissions and other costing items added to the basic price.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, which would explain why some parties gladly pay a few million rand to avoid closer scrutiny.
In most retirement funds, risk benefits are insured, and even though consultants tied to administrators and investment managers intimate to clients these are on a “nil commission” basis, this is generally not true.
Those who believe insurers like Old Mutual and Liberty are white knights who “pass on the full benefit of bulking to their pension fund clients” have a vested interest or are not digging deeply enough.
The crux of the matter is a conflict of interest and ignorance about fiduciary duties. Trustees who rely on the same administrator, asset manager or insurer for advice on where to place members’ assets for investment and reinsure their liabilities, cannot be surprised if overlapping interests of the commercial parties trump the interests of retirement fund trust monies.
Large auditing firms employ unspecialised trainees to do the donkey work, who are largely in the pocket of large clients like asset managers, insurers and administrators. Any industry insider knows that relying on audit reports is naive. The only way to get an “honest deal” is to pay independent experts to police asset managers, insurers, auditors, administrators and actuaries. Vet the fine print, and ensure that the letter and spirit of the law, and each and every fiduciary duty, is adhered to in full. — Mike Stow, HOLD Consulting
Try Jukskei!
I agree with most of John de Wet’s letter (July 14) about Sepp Blatter and his band of bean-counters.
But having a good defence and playing defensively are not synonymous. Italy’s defence was the best in the World Cup. Of 13 goals scored by Italy during regular play, four were scored by defenders. On the standard of play, Pele deemed the Germany/Italy game the best he had seen in 30 years.
De Wet is obviously not a student of the beautiful game and should confine his analysis to a less cerebrally taxing game. Jukskei perhaps. — A Durigon, Fellside
Africa is the only major confederation never to have been represented in the last four at the Fifa World Cup. The United States reached that stage in 1930, as did South Korea in 2002.
Since 1986, when Morocco became the first African team to progress beyond the group stages, there has been an African surprise at every tournament. Cameroon and Senegal were desperately close to reaching the semis in 1994 and 2002 respectively. Ghana outplayed Fifa’s top-ranked European team this year to make the second round.
Let us hope 2010 will be the year African soccer truly comes of age. — Quentin Poulsen, Spain