Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 September 2020 | Story Andre Damons | Photo Pexels
Dr Trevor Manuel, Chairperson: Old Mutual Limited and former minister of finance (top left), Ms Ann Bernstein, Executive Director: Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE) (top right), and Mr Mondli Makhanya, Editor-in-Chief: City Press (bottom left), were the panellists at the University of the Free State’s (UFS) second Thought-Leader Webinar for 2020, which focused on the economy. Dr Max du Preez, Editor: Vrye Weekblad (bottom right), was the facilitator.

The state is broken, and the country cannot move forward unless the state is fixed and bold, tough decisions are made.

This is the opinion of panellists who took part in the University of the Free State’s (UFS) second Thought-Leader Webinar on Wednesday (23 September), which focused on the economy. This webinar is part of a series with the theme ‘Post-COVID-19, Post-Crisis.’  Dr Trevor Manuel, Chairperson: Old Mutual Limited and former minister of finance, Ms Ann Bernstein, Executive Director: Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE), and Mr Mondli Makhanya, Editor-in-Chief: City Press, were the panellists. Dr Max du Preez, Editor: Vrye Weekblad, was the facilitator.

Country needs reform

Both Bernstein and Makhanya said that the state is broken, with Bernstein saying that the state is corrupt, and government decision-making bandwidth is much weaker than it used to be.

“The country is in a very serious situation and cannot do more of the same. We have to reflect honestly on what got us into this terrible situation, and then COVID exacerbated all our problems. What got us into it and what we have done previously has to change.”

“The country needs reform and it is my view that we will not move forward unless government’s credibility as a reformer is establish, and two and a half years of promises and very little action of any significance has undermined that credibility. I think you have to start from that,” says Bernstein.

According to her, bold choices must be made if we are to save what growth we have, if we are to expand growth, to expand more labour intensively. 

“South Africa has all the potential to be a great African economy, with all sorts of strengths that we could build on. But we keep disappointing.”

Building a capable state

Makhanya said going forward, a good starting point is to fix and build a capable state. “The fundamental thing of the NDP (National Development Plan) – a plan that can take us forward – was the part about a capable state.” 
“The state is very broken, and there is no way we can move forward while the state is as broken as it is now. This is what we saw during lockdown, when it was so easy for certain elements to steal from very essential funds that were meant to save lives. It was a classic example of a broken state.”

Another thing we absolutely need to do, is to have one message and one conversation.  

“Tough decisions should be taken. It was frustrating again to find us as a country talking about where to find R10,5 billion to fund our ailing airline. Why is this a priority? We know what our priorities are. We know Eskom is a priority, we know food security is a priority, unemployment is a priority. Why is it necessary for us as a country to have this hectic debate about having a national airline?” 

“Decisions need to be taken around the health of the fiscus, decisions around the public wage bill, around issues of freeing up enterprise, and about reforms. The decisions will take a long time to make and some of them will be unpopular, but they need to be taken,” says Makhanya.

According to him, President Cyril Ramaphosa needs to take these decisions. He also needs to tell himself that he would be happy to serve one term, and that he does not need friends to vote him back as leader of the ANC and as President of the country in 2024. President Ramaphosa needs to do things now, knowing that he will leave a legacy of having fixed a country, and importantly, having fixed the economy.

Announcement of hard lockdown saw the economy hurtling down a cliff

Dr Manuel said the hard lockdown announced at the end of March saw the economy hurtling down a cliff. This happened after three successive quarters of contraction. “We find ourselves at the base of this ravine, having tumbled down. How do we extricate the South African economy from where we are given the geography of where we are?”

According to him, the country has fewer options than we would like to imagine. 

“I think the 51% contraction in the second quarter must introduce a sense of urgency and focus the mind. We are not alone. But we need to be rigorously honest about where we are. And we need to also ask ourselves tough questions of whether we have the wherewithal to reconstruct the economy,” says Dr Manuel. 

According to him, the $3,4 billion borrowed from the IMF is unlikely to be sufficient, and there is a growing consensus that the full-on standby facility from the IMF will probably be needed.  

He says while the RFID has no obvious conditions, it is important to pay attention to the fine print. “In the letter of intent, which was jointly signed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance, we committed to take action to revoke the upward trajectory of the debt-to-GDP ratio, and also a commitment to remove the structural impediments to growth. So, it is quite important to understand what we committed to and against what we will be measured.” 
“The IMF, in accepting those commitments, also warned about the urgency and the sequencing of the series of policy measures to prevent – in their words – the risk of social unrest. They also raised a series of red flags that are important in the context. The first is the growth of the public sector wage bill, something that is in the public domain and about which NEHAWU is threatening to strike. The second issue is the scale of transfers to state-owned enterprises. Thirdly, the risk of the curtailment of infrastructures.”

There has also been a flurry of policy writing and discussions. The National Treasury, Business for South Africa, and the ANC have written their own papers on reconstruction, growth, and building an inclusive economy.  According to Dr Manuel, however, the question is how to get things done. 

“The concern I have about these papers is that there is inadequate attention to public finance, which sets a frame for all economic development that needs to take place. And it is basically an equation – what you have to spend is the sum of what to tax and what you can borrow.”

What the country needs right now is clarity on the trade-offs, and not even the social partners paper deals with trade-off clearly enough. If you put money into an airline, it has to come from somewhere else. Your ability to govern and exercise choices is therefore severely limited.

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept