100% COMMUNISM IN SOUTH AFRICA / KOMMUNISME IN SUID-AFRIKA
Reasons why we as Afrikaners and Whites in South Africa do need self-determination:
Redes hoekom Afrikaners, Boere en Blankes Eksterne Selfbeskikking benodig
Black empowerment legislation is racism and discrimation against whites, it is the biggest threat to all Whites, Boere and Afrikaners in South Africa, we need to work and build our own nation(s) with external self-determination.
Swart ekonomiese wetgewing is rassisme en diskriminasie teenoor alle wittes in Suid-Afrika. Ons moet gesamentlik as ‘n nasie werk om uit hierdie web te kom, deur middel van Eksterne Selfbeskikking.
“The first part of the problem lies within the definition and classification of ‘Black’,” “The BEE Amendment bill makes it clear that the term only applies to those citizens that were, or were entitled to be, South African citizens before 27 April 2004 and their descendents. That is not the truth. If a person is Black and was in the country, or arrived later but does not fall into that very clear definition, such a person may be a South African citizen or have a valid work permit, but is not supposed to be recognised as Black or benefit from BEE. Neither are their children, unless the other parent is Black by definition.” All of the children of the Non-BEE Black segment of the population that are born in South Africa, whether their parents are legally in South Africa or not, automatically become South Africans.
According to Stats SA’s Quarterly Labour Force Survey in 2012, South Africa’s population between the ages of 15 and 64 years currently stands at around 33 million people. Of this, about 88.5% are Black, consisting of 74.7% African, 10.8% Coloured and 3% Indian people. What Stats SA does not publish and probably does not count, are the sections of these population groups that are not included in the BEE definition of Black. Minister of Home Affairs, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, (she is now at the African Union (AU) confirms that Home Affairs has no idea how many illegal immigrants are in South Africa, but it is estimated to be somewhere between five and 10 million legal and illegal immigrants.
A recently published article entitled ‘Refugees overwhelming South Africa’, by parliamentary correspondent Denise Williams, states that South Africa has the highest number of ‘asylum’ seekers in the world, and that many more people enter South Africa illegally through our notoriously porous borders. The main problem is therefore that the Black population contains a large percentage of people that are classified as Black by Stats SA and make up the demographics of the South African population, but they are supposed to be excluded from BEE (they are immigrants). As a result, there is a substantial category of the population that are “Non-BEE Black people”. If the estimates are even remotely accurate, this could be a larger group than the Coloured, White or Indian population groups. BUT Verification agencies can pick up from identity documents when a person is not born in South Africa and then insist on proof that the person is indeed BEE Black, but a major new challenge is arising.
All of the children of the Non-BEE Black segment of the population that are born in South Africa, whether their parents are legally in South Africa or not, automatically become South Africans. It has now been 18 years since 1994, these children are entering the job market and for all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable from the children of BEE Black people. What makes this somewhat absurd is that the children of a recently immigrated Nigerian or German couple will enjoy equal benefit from BEE as their South African counterparts. Verification agencies will not be able to determine who is supposed to be classified as BEE Black to reap the benefits and who should not.
During 2013 the Sector Codes have been completed and several new and proposed Codes, Acts and Bills were implemented . These include the release of the proposed draft B-BBEE Codes, the BEE Amendment Bill, the Employment Equity Amendment Bill and the proposed Licensing of Businesses Bill.
How many racist legislations are there against the White people (Afrikaners, Boers and other whites)? >> 110 << …… (but there could be more)
Ask yourself: what rights do I have as a citizen of South Africa?
What can I do for myself?
Since 1994 it has become clear that the ANC-regime has never included the ‘white’ citizens of South Africa into its plans for the future. Most Town Councils make decisions which deliberately endanger the lives of poor-whites: for instance by forcibly removing them to live on garbage-dumps, some dumps have radio-activity as well, in dangerously ramshackle housing without any of the basic services which South Africans are entitled to under the constitution such as free clean water, sanitation facilities and free access to public schools. Afrikaners, Whites and Boers from empoverished communities are discriminated against in all walks of life, and often denied hospital treatment, denied the basic right to be taken by a government ambulance to public hospitals, and their children are denied an education in their own home language of Afrikaans.
Solidarity trade union announced in November 2014 that they have approached the United Nations with a formal complaint about the more than 110 black-racist anti-whtie discrimination laws passed through the South African government’s Black Economic Empowerment Act and similar laws, since 1994.
The Chinese in South Africa
South African Chinese are jubilant after the Pretoria high court ruled in June 2008 that they may benefit fully from the country’s black empowerment and employment equity legislation. The landmark ruling applies to South African citizens who are of Chinese descent, and it means that South African Chinese are now to be reclassified as black. The Chinese Association of South Africa (Casa) fought for eight years to obtain clarification on its status from the government, eventually taking the matter to court in December 2007. In the legal battle they were assisted by veteran human rights advocate George Bizos and constitutional law advocate Alfred Cockrell. Black economic empowerment (BEE), passed into South African law in 2003 , is a controversial programme aimed at reversing the bias of apartheid, which saw the country’s economic wealth concentrated in the hands of the white minority. BEE has come under much criticism since its enactment because it is seen to largely benefit another minority, the new black elite. BEE applies to black, coloured and Indian South Africans and because Chinese were classified as coloured during apartheid, it was understood that they too would qualify for benefits. However, said the campaigners, since 1994 the Chinese community had been perceived as white and were therefore excluded.
RACISM AND DISCRIMATION: LEGISLATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
The following statement for information:
DA supports B-BBEE amendment bill – Wilmot James
Extract from speech delivered by DA Shadow Minister of Trade and Industry, Wilmot James MP, during today’s debate on the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill in Parliament.
DA supports B-BBEE bill
The DA supports the Broad Based Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) Amendment Bill. The Bill has the potential to promote redress, decrease inequality, and promote economic growth and job creation. This is in line with the DA’s belief that Reconciliation, Redress, Diversity, and Delivery are the most appropriate measures to redress the injustices of apartheid.
The Bill before us amends the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 in the main to:
- promote compliance i.e. criminalise what has become known as ‘fronting’;
- set down incentive schemes to support BBBEE compliant enterprises; and
- establish a Commission to scrutinise and monitor compliance.
During the committee stage the DA put a number of proposals that were duly accepted and carried by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry:
- that the Commission have the resources to be fully capable of dealing with queries;
- that the Commission only investigate cases if there is demonstrable cause;
- that companies listed on the JSE be required only to provide compliance information and not be burdened by having to provide irrelevant data; and
- that the appointment of the head of the Commission is the joint responsibility of the DTI Minister and Parliament.
However, we will be seeking last minute changes to ensure that due process and fair procedure is adhered to when it comes to the cancellation of contracts. Section 13(a) of the Bill as it stands, will have the unintended effect of retarding the progress of BBBEE, not advancing it.
The clause allows State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to cancel contracts that have been entered into on the basis of false verification data. This appears to be quite normal. However, the effect is that banks will be less likely to finance BEE transactions if there is a possibility that contracts will be canceled arbitrarily. The issue was raised as a serious one by the Banking Association of South Africa and the Oceana Group. If passed in this form it will set BEE back.
The further challenge with the Bill is to ensure that the scorecard drives genuine broad-based empowerment and prevents re-empowerment of the already enriched; and includes self-defined employment equity target compliance. It is imperative that the Bill is non-racial when it comes to enterprise development, education, training and corporate social investment grants.
The scores generated by the application of the scorecard become the basis of BBBEE compliance and not simply the historical identity of the owner. What matters in the scheme of things is whether empowerment is spread far and wide in the company, the sector and the economy as a whole. Too often the well-connected elite have enriched themselves in the name of Black Economic Empowerment.
In the DA’s Plan for Growth and Jobs we make the following additional proposals:
- To reduce the cost associated with complying with empowerment regulations for Qualifying Small Enterprises by introducing biennial BBBEE audits valid for 24 months;
- Introduce an employee bonus scheme for unlisted firms that replicates existing share incentives as we have them for listed entities;
- Declare 50% of the value of shares awarded to qualifying employees to be tax deductible to the employer, and exempt the full value and any eventual gain from income tax in the hands of the beneficiary;
- Introduce an employee bonus scheme for unlisted firms that replicates existing share incentive regime for listed entities; and
- Distribute shares in the country’s State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in order to activate ‘dead capital’ and thereby put financial assets in the hands of poor South Africans.
We live in a country with a history of cumulative race-based exclusion that someone once described as encompassing the long centuries of injustice. In the 20th century the 1913 Natives’ Land Act, the 1946 Asian Land Tenure Act and the 1950 Group Areas Act were the principal instruments of stripping assets from the voteless majority. Supporting the Amendment Bill is a contribution to righting a historical wrong.
Issued by the DA, June 20 2013
THERE ARE VARIOUS BLACK RACIST LAWS IN SOUTH AFRICA, IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA, WITH THE HELP OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OTHER PARTIES
Equity Equivalent Programmes for Multinationals
The Codes of Good Practice require that all entities operating in the South African economy make a contribution towards the objectives of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE). It is, however, acknowledged that there may be Multinationals that have global practices preventing them from complying with the ownership element of B-BBEE through the traditional sale of shares to black South Africans. In this instance, and provided that it can be proven that such entities do not enter into any partnership arrangements in other countries globally, the Codes of Good Practice have made provision for the recognition of contributions in lieu of a direct sale of equity. Such contributions are referred to as Equity Equivalent (EE) contributions. Such EE contributions count towards the ownership element of B-BBEE made by Multinationals. The value of these EE contributions may be measured against 25% of the value of the Multinational?s South African operations or may be measured against 4% of the Total Revenue from its South African operations annually over the period of continued measurement.
Equity Equivalent would entail a public programme/scheme and/or private programme/scheme designed to fulfill the requirements of B-BBEE ownership. Equity Equivalent may also entail a programme targeting investment or any other programme that promotes Socio-Economic advancement/ development within the South African Economy. Such a programme needs to be approved by the Minister of Trade and Industry in order to qualify for ownership points on the scorecard. Where approval for an Equity Equivalent Programme has been granted, the programme and points awarded may not form part of any other B-BBEE element in the Multinational’s B-BBEE Scorecard.
A proposal for an EE Programme would have to be developed by a representative entity of the foreign Multinational for submission to the dti and may either take the form of a private programme or a public programme or a combination of both as provided for in the Codes of Good Practice, Code 100: Statement 103.
Functions of the Equity Equivalent Secretariat
The Equity Equivalent Secretariat is responsible for:
Analysing valuation methodologies and business plans from multinational companies;
Managing and processing applications for exemptions from multinational companies;
Assisting with developing strategies for implementing specific elements of the scorecard within the Employment Equity Programme;
Handling all queries and concerns from all relevant stakeholders (public, private, external and local);
Collating and disseminating information to all relevant stakeholders with respect to the Equity Equivalent Programme;
Providing secretariat support to the Equity Equivalent Committee;
Analysing multinational company structures and vetting (scrutinising) Equity Equivalent proposals to determine commercial viability and sustainability against the set criteria;
Developing and conducting presentations to foreign offices, embassies, high commissions, chambers and international clients; and
Assisting in the monitoring and evaluation of implemented programmes.
Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment
- Statement of Clarification- the Transitional Period
- Interpretation Statement – Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE), Codes of Good Practice of 2007
- Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Summit – October 2013
- List of Approved Facilitators for the B-BBEE MDP Programme
South Africa’s first democratic government was elected in 1994, with a clear mandate to redress the inequalities of the past in every sphere: political, social and economic. Since then, government has embarked on a comprehensive programme to provide a legislative framework for the transformation of South Africa’s economy. In 2003, the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Strategy was published as a precursor to the B-BBEE Act, No. 53 of 2003. The fundamental objective of the Act is to advance economic transformation and enhance the economic participation of black people in the South African economy.
The Act provides a legislative framework for the promotion of BEE, empowering the Minister of Trade and Industry to issue Codes of Good Practice and publish Transformation Charters, and paving the way for the establishment of the B-BBEE Advisory Council.
In order to fulfil the legal mandate as outlined in the Act, President Jacob Zuma appointed members to the B-BBEE Advisory Council on 3 December 2009, as contemplated in Section 6(1)(c) and (d) of the Act. The B-BBEE Advisory Council aims to provide guidance and overall monitoring of the state of B-BBEE performance in the economy, with a view to making policy recommendations to address challenges in the implementation of this transformation policy.
The B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice emerged in February 2007 as an implementation framework for B-BBEE policy and legislation. After the implementation thereof, institutional mechanisms were established for the monitoring and evaluation of B-BBEE in the entire economy.
In an effort to comply with the B-BBEE policy, companies have employed the services of Verification Agencies (VAs). Due to verification practices having varied from agency to agency, resulting in confusion in the market, certain revisions were required. Consequently, in the interests of harmonising accreditation and verifications practices, the dti and the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) have put in place a process of phasing out certificates issued by non-accredited VAs.
As a result of the above, from 1 February 2010, certificates issued by VAs – those which are accredited and those that are not yet accredited but which have received a valid pre-assessment letter from SANAS – will be acceptable in the market. These certificates will be valid for a period of twelve months.
- Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Act, 2013 (Act No. 53 of 2003)
- B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice Gazette No.36928, 11 October 2013
- the dti Warns the Public of Fraudulent B-BBEE Certificates
- Notice of Clarification: 6 – 10 Year Targets
B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice
The B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice are to be applied in the development, evaluation and monitoring of BEE Charters, initiatives, transactions and other implementation mechanisms. The Codes contain basic principles and essential considerations, and provide guidance in the form of explanatory material.
- Transition period for compliance with new BEE codes extended to April 2015, Government Gazette No.37453
- B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice Gazette No.36928
- Amended B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice Launch Presentation by the Minister
- B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice, 2007
- Summary of the B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice, July 2007 [PDF]
- Guidelines on the Equity Equivalent Programme for Multinationals, and Complex Structures and Transactions, and Fronting [PDF]
- Petrosa, BEE Facilitator Notice 390, 2009 [PDF]
- B-BBEE Research Reports
- B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice – Archive
Statement of Clarification – Effective Date of Sector Codes
The purpose of this statement is to clarify the date when a Measured Entity that falls within the scope of a particular Section 9(1) Sector Code must be measured or verified on the basis of the Sector Code and no longer on the basis of the B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice (“the dti Codes”). View Statement
- Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Act, 2013 (Act No. 53 of 2003) [PDF]
- B-BBEE Act 2003-2004 [PDF]
- A Strategy for Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment, download the strategy
Vra uself af: WIE is die oorsaak van Afrikaners en Blankes se agteruitgang, wit armoede?
Just mention the following discussion took place on 13 October 2014 on Biznews and this is for sure evidence they want the land as well as every business of our own people.
BBBEE codes: Govt trying to force R10m-plus businesses into Black control
South Africa’s proposed new Black Empowerment codes (BBBEE) have become very personal for EconoBEE’s founder Keith Levenstein as his own company faces the dilemma confronting 83% of Qualifying Enterprises (turnover R10m to R50m): Sell/give control of your company to Black Owners or get downgraded to a level 8 (bottom of the pile) rating. In this interview he admits to not knowing what to do. Nor do his clients. Whatever transpires, these proposals make the ANC Government’s intention very clear. It is throwing legislative might behind forcing racial transformation of South African business ownership. A very blunt tool that is sure to have unintended consequences the bureaucrats have not even thought about
ALEC HOGG: Keith Levenstein form EconoBEE is with us in the studio. The new BBBEE codes have come out Keith – for comment at this stage…
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: That’s right, Alec. They came out on Friday. They refer to the QSE (qualifying small enterprises) codes. Other codes came out as well: equity equivalents and recognition of assets, but the main one that we’re concerned about is the qualifying small enterprises.
ALEC HOGG: And they are…what?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: It refers to companies whose annual turnover is between R10m and R50m.
ALEC HOGG: So up to R10m turnover, you’re clear. There’s no real application of BBBEE, but between R10 and R50m turnover, this is where the essence of these new codes come in.
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: That’s correct. If your company is 100 percent black-owned and its turnover is between R10m and R50m then it is automatically Level 1 (the top ranking for BBBEE). If a company is at least 51 percent black-owned then it is automatically Level 2 without doing anything. Alternatively, if your company is less than 51 percent black-owned, you need to follow these new codes that came out on Friday.
ALEC HOGG: And what the practical implications of that?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: Firstly, it means that all QSE’s – that requirement – are going to have to follow all five elements of the Amended BBBEE codes, which include ownership, management control, skills development, preferential procurement, (which is now called Enterprise and Supply Development), and socio-economic development. On the old codes that we’re currently working on, a QSE could choose four out of the seven elements. Now, he has to choose all five elements, which obviously includes the controversial ownership aspect.
ALEC HOGG: That’s a big change. What has motivated it?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: I think a lot of it is because Government is seeing that there has been some fronting taking place. At the same time, see that…
ALEC HOGG: What is fronting?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: Fronting is quite simply, misrepresenting your BBBEE status, stating that you meet a particular condition or you have a BBBEE Level, and you don’t. It’s usually around ownership, but not necessarily so.
ALEC HOGG: All right, so you’re now going to try to remove fronting by bringing in codes that are draconian. That seems a little counterintuitive?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: In our opinion, it’s going to encourage more fronting because the codes are so much more difficult to achieve. We have done our own calculations since Friday and we find that some white-owned companies, who are Level 2’s are going to end up being Level 8, bearing in mind that the best level is Level and the worst level is Level 8 or else, non-compliant. The sad thing is I think many QSE companies are going to end up not bothering to comply because they won’t get a scorecard. It’s now becoming quite difficult.
ALEC HOGG: How many white-owned companies would fit into that area/category – roughly? What percentage of companies in that category would be white-owned?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: Some of the research that I’ve done shows that something like 83 percent of all companies who have a QSE scorecard, have ownership of less than 51 percent, so a huge percentage of companies that are white-owned.
ALEC HOGG: So let’s understand that. Eighty-three percent of the companies that turnover between R10m and R50m in South Africa will have to change their way of doing business because of these new codes.
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: That is correct.
ALEC HOGG: One the one hand, if they want to break the moral code (if not the legal code), they can adopt fronting. They could adopt black shareholders who are not effectively shareholders. On the other hand, if they don’t do that…if they try to follow the codes and they become Level 8 as you were saying a moment ago, what happens to their business?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: They’re going to lose their competitive advantage. Our Minister for Small Business Development has always been speaking about it. The reason we have that Ministry is to try to encourage the growth of small businesses. We want to encourage small black businesses, but we also want to encourage (and not demotivate) small white businesses. In fact, we want to create many small businesses. For example, if my business becomes a Level 8, I won’t have a competitive advantage over some of the larger consulting companies who are generics. Many other QSE will have exactly, the same problems. They won’t be supported as much by the large businesses as they used to be.
ALEC HOGG: Just explain that. Currently, smaller businesses because of the BEE have an advantage and are more competitive than the bigger businesses. In future, you’re saying that they’re going to lose that advantage.
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: They will lose some of that advantage. Many of the larger businesses are currently Level 5’s or Level 4’s, whereas the QSE’s are Level 2’s and many of them are Level 1’s, so that has always encouraged big business to try to support small business, which was what the codes wanted. If all the QSE’s end up being the same or a worse level than the larger businesses, there might not be as much incentive. There still is a form of incentive in the procurement regulations but not as much, which means that it will hurt the smaller business. I’ve always been keen on small business. I have a small business, so I’m seeing that many small business owners are going to end up just giving up or as you say, doing the worst/bad thing, like fronting.
ALEC HOGG: Where do you fall in your business? Are you a QSE?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: I’m currently a QSE.
ALEC HOGG: So what are you going to do?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: At the moment, I wish I could tell you exactly what I need to do. We will have black ownership because it makes sense to me to do so. We’ve earmarked people who are genuinely going to add a contribution to our business, even including our staff so it’s absolutely perfect, but for me to say I’m going to sell percent right now, is a rather a big decision and I’m running out of time.
ALEC HOGG: But you need to sell 51 percent and not just 25 percent if you want to get an advantage or retain your advantage.
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: If I want to get automatic compliance, then 51 percent is what I need. If I sell 25 percent of my business then I have to follow the scorecard, which is a bit more onerous, but I can still get to round about Level 3 – maybe Level 2 if I work really hard. It just becomes a bit unfair in a way that I go through the whole process of getting a scorecard and get to Level 3 whereas if I had 51 percent black ownership, I could just dispense with the good things I’m doing – as are you and probably other companies – to skills development. I currently have two staff who are doing their degree/diploma courses. One guy is doing his MBA and I’m thrilled about that and yes, I’m going to be rewarded for it, but it will be very nice not to lose the benefit. I think many companies are going to end up deciding ‘why should we bother’.
ALEC HOGG: Its early days, but your clients would have known something like this is coming. What has their feedback been?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: We did. I don’t have that much feedback from our clients at the moment. We knew that there was going to be the priority element and the five elements that we had to follow. What has upset me slightly is the QSE codes are measured out of 118 points, including bonuses. This means that in order to get to your Level 2 (95 points), you can afford to lose 18 plus five (23), whereas what we would like to change is the current QSE codes are measured only out of 100 points. If I therefore lost just five points, I’m down to that 95. To some extent, we have an opportunity of talking to government. They’re asking for public submissions and we should give those public submissions. To some extent, we have to say small business.
We’re on our own. We can’t rely on the big Chambers of Commerce and big business to support us.
We ourselves (and small business tend to be very good at ignoring issues)… Look at how we ignored the e-toll issue.
ALEC HOGG: But there’s no time. That’s the problem. An entrepreneur is already going 18 hours per day. They don’t really have time or don’t believe they have time that they can set aside to deal with these kinds of regulations.
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: Yes, that’s even worse. The Minister’s done something that I think, might be against the Act. In the first place, he’s given us 35 days to comment. The Act itself says that when the Minister issues a draft, he must give the public at least 60 days to comment, so he’s given us too little time. Possibly, because it’s a mistake or maybe he chose to reduce the time to make it more difficult for us to comment.
ALEC HOGG: Keith, is all of this constitutional? I ask this because there’s now a Fund that Mark Shuttleworth has established, which will allow those people who perhaps don’t like the social engineering to take it to the Constitutional Court.
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: Alec, as far as I know there have been challenges. Back in 2003 when the Act came out and then in 2007, there were various challenges. Afriforum or one of those organisations might have put in some type of challenge a well. I’d never ever want to support those organisations but I think that some form of Constitutional Court challenges that came out – that it is Constitutional.
ALEC HOGG: So there isn’t a Mark Shuttleworth way. What you have to decide now is, are you going to comply with the law and possibly lose control of your business, or are you going to break the law and keep your business?
KEITH LEVENSTEIN: The alternative might be… If we can mobilise enough people to suggest better alternatives to the department, they might listen. They do sometimes listen.
(HKGK… that is for sure)
Do not forget to Subscribe to the EKP’s newsletter – it is important to receive your news first hand.
Ons is ook op Facebook: pages/SelfbeskikkingSelf-Determination/826548024058616
Ons is ook op Twitter: twitter.com/Selfbeskikking
Ons email: firstname.lastname@example.org
KONTAK: Hein Marx, 0828015399