The experts agree on gun control

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Bheki Cele and heard him speak informally about the state of crime in South Africa. I don’t know how much of the conversations in private meetings like that are appropriate to disclose, but suffice it to say the man’s impromptu speech gave me hope for this country.

There seem to be a number of issues where the commissioner and I don’t see eye-to-eye, however. There was his emotional reaction to seeing a small replica of “Die Prinsevlag” on a woman’s desk, and then there’s todays news where he’s quoted as saying that only law enforcers should need guns. This is one of the advertisement taglines of Beeld today as well, probably because it’s a topic that’s close to home for the majority of the Afrikaans demographic who are a bit like Texans when it comes to issues of gun control.

Now there’s a good chance that what Cele said is being taken horribly out of context (by me and the media), but considering the ANC’s history with gun control matters, I think it’s fair to assume that it was meant as we interpret it. It also makes sense for governments to not want their civillians armed, or otherwise capable of defending themselves, because it means they can bully or strongarm them into doing whatever they want.

I think it’s important for me to state at this point that I think our current firearm legislation is good. The focus of the law is on preserving the sanctity of life. That is why you aren’t allowed to shoot a fleeing perpetrator, or fire upon people for trespassing on your property. You may only attempt to kill someone who is threatening your, or someone else’s life. That’s a good principle, if practically a little insensible. Generally by the time a robbery gets to the point where someone’s life is threatened it’s almost too late to do something about it (and live).

Our current legislation requires people to prove that they are competent enough to own a firearm. You need to pass an easy test and learn something about the law and firearms you’re applying for in the process. You’re legally allowed a combination of four firearms (neatly outlined at GunFactsSA), none of which may be automatic (unless you are a collector). That is cause for some concern, but for the average citizen that wants to protect themselves, a semi-automatic handgun or pump-action shotgun are good enough.

That said, the statements/threats of disarmament made by the people in government that seem to get to make unilateral decisions about these things, are troubling. They seem to be generally discontent with the level of protection the current law offers us.

If only the law enforcers and military have guns, how will the citizens protect themselves from a corrupt government? The truth is that governments are afraid of their citizens rising up when they’ve had enough, so they want to make sure their citizens have as little power to affect such change as possible. The fact is that despite our modern ‘civilised’ age might still makes right. If a government decides to oppress a people, or decides to wipe them off the planet, kick them out the coutry, or blame them for all their woes then their ability to execute that decision is proportional to the ability those citizens have to protect themselves.

In the words of V (from the film, probably not from the book): “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

Or from a less fictional source: “The [balance of power] would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.” –Anonymous: Attributed to Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, July, 1775 [source]

While Paine was referring to war on the scale of nation against nation, I believe the philosophy can, and must be applied on a smaller scale.

When it comes to gun control, I’m with Chris Rock.

Bernadine Kruger

Last week (Thursday, 10 September 2009) Percyval Matji was found guilty of the murder of Bernadine Kruger. Today, a week later he was sentenced to 12 years in prison

For those who don’t know what this is about, Percyval Matji had driven into the back of Bernadine’s scooter while she was on her way to school in Garsfontein. When she fell the taxi drove over her and she was killed.

This case has been plagued with accusations of incompetence as the police on the scene let Matji leave without taking him into custody. Fortunately nothing came of the slip up and Matji was arrested when the murder charges were brought against him. Of course, then the judge posted a R1000 bail on the condition that Matji disclosed the full details of his other address in Mpumalanga and reported to the police station every day. Patterson increased the bail to R5000 when the prosecution protested that the convicted murderer needed to be placed in custody

Finally, in what is probably the fastest conviction I’ve seen, Matji was convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison. When Magistrate Edmund Patterson handed down judgment he was quoted as saying, “It was not a mistake. It was not negligence.” In context he was saying that Matji’s actions were deliberate – an obvious  pre-requisite for a murder conviction. On top of the prison sentence Matji was declared unfit to own a firearm and his license and permit to drive were revoked.

Percyval Matji

No justice, no sentence will bring Bernadine back, but I for one hope that this ruling sends out a strong message to taxi drivers everywhere.

You can’t endanger the lives of other road users or the lives of your passengers and get away with it.

With the introduction of competing services in Johannesburg like BRT you no longer hold a monopoly over affordable transportation. You now have to treat your customers like customers and not cattle if you want to keep them.

If you endanger the lives of the people that share the road with you there will be hell to pay. If you continue to treat your customers like dirt, or endanger their lives then you will be minus your livelihood.

By now is old news that Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, has withdrawn from the final run-off elections in Zimbabwe which would determine the next president of the country.

This comes after at least 70 MDC supporters have been killed. Robert Mugabe’s answer to the “imperialist West” to the allegations that opposition supporters are being killed by mandate of the government is that the media is once again misrepresenting what is happening in Zimbabwe to justify their interference in the country.

Steve Pierson at The Standard, a political blog, says:

Military action seems to be the only option left. A smart campaign could be conducted relatively bloodlessly but it would have to be led by South Africa, the only country in the region with the standing and the military might to carry out such an action. And South Africa is showing no will to act. [http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2298]

In some respects I agree with Steve. It is obvious that non-violence seems to be a tactic only the opposition are interested in. But I disagree that any military campaign conducted by South Africa against Zimbabwe will be “relatively bloodless.” I also agree that New Zealand should offer its support – but that South Africa should decline. At least initially.

I have it on relatively good authority that should a military incursion from South Africa to assist in a coup d’état degenerate into an all-out bush war (which is likely) then our army will be given a thorough shelacking. We might have the technological upper-hand and superior numbers, but our military has deteriorated significantly over the last 10 years. I would venture a guess that this is due to more pressing concerns at home than keeping a well-oiled fighting machine in reserve.

While I don’t profess to be a military genius, I do not logically see the technological advantage we have counting for much if we’re

1. Fighting in the bush; and
2. Trying to preserve innocent life.

The Zimbabwean army should also not be underestimated. I don’t know about the state of repair of the Zimbabwean air force or armoured divisions but I know that ours leaves much to be desired, mainly due to funding reasons.

Our special forces known as the Recces could be deployed to covertly assist rather than risking open warfare, but our Special Forces Regiments also suffered due to the shift in priorities that came with the changes in 1994. For instance, as part of the “military transformation process,” 1 Special Forces Regiment was disbanded in 1996.

Today I’m not coming up with solutions. The prospects in this situation look bleak. Either people continue to die or live in squalor or we send in our troops to and they die to try and prevent the Zanu-PF from killing more innocents. Today I am saying that whatever the ANC decides to do about this they have to weigh the cost in human life carefully – hardly an easy task and one that will most assuredly be met with criticism no matter which path they take:

• Try to convince Mugabe to buy into a “government of national unity” (maintain status quo). Should this fail it will appear as if the ANC have done nothing but it will likely cost fewer lives. Mugabe is unlikely to give up his seat of power, however.
• Get the AU or SADC to approve the deployment of a peace force. Should we then lose to the Zanu-PF in a bush war at least it would look like the ANC tried but failed. No matter how you slice it, a military campaign will cost more lives. The chances  of the SANDF winning a bush war against the Zanu-PF (ZNA) is unknown.

Regarding the support from New Zealand – it would be great to know that we’re not in this alone, but in the end I don’t think an African nation could accept help to depose another African government from the ‘imperial West.’ This includes funding, arms, and personnel, I think. It’s sick that politics doesn’t seem to have anything to do with making mature, well calculated decisions but with street cred.

So for the initial campaign South Africa should decline help, but once the rebuilding of Zimbabwe is underway I reckon all aid will be welcome again.

Thus ends my reply to Steve Pierson’s post. Below is just a little bit more added for flavour.

In an article on News24 it is reported that Henri Boshoff, of the Institute for Security Studies said that a UN peace mission requires that a resolution to the effect being adopted and this could only happen if the host nation requests it or there is evidence of gross human rights violations. In the latter case (which most everyone is willing to agree on) the UN will still use a regional organisation like SADC or the AU for peace enforcement. According to the article it is very unlikely SADC or the AU will condone the deployment of troops in the region because of their individual policies on interference.

Karin Alexander of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa who is currently in Zimbabwe went so far as to say that deployment a peace force was an unlikely solution because Mugabe’s possible response created risks.

This basically means that a military campaign into Zim is out of the question for the ANC for the time being.

The Minister of Provinial and Local Government, Sydney Mufamadi and Thabo Mbeki’s legal advisor, Mojanku Gumbi are in Harare at the moment to discuss the “goverment of national unity” with Mugabe. I guess we’ll have to see what results our diplomatic efforts and the elections on Friday yield before grabbing our guns.

History has a funny way of repeating itself, though, and Robert Mugabe has shown very little inclination to relinquish his presidency. I guess the question is not if diplomacy fails and Mugabe is re-elected but when? And what will the ‘imperialist West’ do if South Africa, SADC, and the AU disappoints again? Will they risk the repercussions of interfering in African affairs?

The latest one involved a Durban man driving into and knocking down a 29-year-old petrol attendant, causing injuries to his spine and hand. In a related incident, a man from Pretoria stole R2 570’s worth of petrol at a petrol station on Hans Strijdom Avenue in Waterkloof Ridge.

Now Morgan (from the FRA) tries to empathise with the consumer, stating that “People are doing this because they have no choice…”. I applaud him for his desire to see the situation from another’s perspective, but there is always a choice. Each incident has a unique set of circumstances. Given that there are only “about 10 similar incidents” a generalisation is especially foolish. Even if there were a greater sample to draw from generalisations only serve to neglect certain elements in a sample.

This is not to say that there weren’t cases of people being hard-up. For the purposes of my rant however, I’m going to take a look at the above 2 incidents in a sample of “about 10.”

First, let’s take a look at the man that stole R2 570’s worth of petrol:

• He arrives and asks the attendant to fill up his white Corsa and the six 25-litre cans in the boot.
• He promises the attendant a large tip if he works quickly and takes a walk to the shop.
• When he returns he gives the attendant a cooldrink, some biltong and R10, and asks him to fill up six more containers that were in the vehicle.
• He pulls a Houdini by asking the attendant to get him 4 of the cheapest cans of oil and speeding off when the attendant’s back is turned.
• After a manager from a nearby Exel station in Muskejaat Street in Waterkloof Ridge reviewed the footage he was able to confirm that the same man had stolen petrol to the value of R1 400 from them in February.

This illustrates that the recent price hikes had nothing to do with the man’s petrol theft. He’s just a small-time opportunist. Assuming that the two robberies are his only two (a dangerous assumption) I think it’s possible to induce that he is using the petrol he steals and that it is likely that the fuel he stole in February (R1 400) lasted until mid-May (when he committed the next robbery). That amounts to about R467 per month that didn’t have to come out of his pay.

His theft doesn’t sound like an act of “How will I be able to get home tonight?” desperation but of simple pre-meditated “I didn’t feel like paying for petrol anymore” robbery.

In the incident where the dude hit the pump attendant the attendant fell on the bonnet as the guy tried to speed off (it’s not said if the attendant was trying to stop the guy from driving off or if he fell onto the bonnet because the motorist hit him). The attendant then fell off and was used for traction by one of the vehicle’s tyres.

What kind of man just drives off when he’s hit someone? And all this for a tank of petrol?

The first I watched was Asikhulume, and the second Interface. Interface did a pretty cool piece on the deregulation of the fuel industry in the light of the massive petrol price hike this month.

Asikhulume/Let’s Talk asked an interesting question: “Has the South African government promoted reconciliation at the cost of transformation?” They had 3 semi-famous people on their panel: a black woman whose name I can’t remember, a white dude called Dan Roodt representing Afrikaner interests, and a black man called Aubrey that was the most rational around that whole table (hostess included).

I always want to hear the opinions of the masses of South Africa regarding the issues the country as well as true popular opinion regarding “The Oppressor” (or Afrikaner). I guess I learnt something I should’ve known anyway… The opinions of South Africans are pretty much as numerous as the citizens themselves. Just as Dan Roodt’s views hardly represents the opinions of every Afrikaner, so one view isn’t necessarily representative of the masses of South Africa.

There were some opinions phoned in by callers that was quite troubling.

1. “Africans can never be racist because racism requires power to be exerted over someone/some group…”
2. References were made where black South Africans called themselves “native africans/south africans.”

Some interesting points raised by Dan Roodt were:

1. Afrikaners are a minority in a similar position as the African Americans of the United States.
2. Whites/Afrikaners are afraid of what measures the SA government will employ to see transformation done due to Africa’s history of dealing with whites after they lose power. Zimbabwe was cited as an example of where whites were kicked out and left with nothing more than the clothes on their backs.
3. Whites/Afrikaners are victims of racism (there was a lengthy explanation here I don’t even want to try to reproduce)

Aubrey made the only point I completely agreed with.

(paraphrase) “Everyone feels like they’re a victim and no-one is willing to accept responsibility…” (left unfinished due to interruption by the hostess, Rebecca I believe her name was)

None of these points really directly addressed the question that the episode claimed to ask. But in all the answers something becomes clear. Transformation wasn’t sacrificed for reconciliation. Nothing was sacrificed for reconciliation because there is obviously none (or possibly very little).

Transformation and reconciliation are things that take time. People aren’t going to wake up one morning and forgive all the wrong that was perpetrated against them for four decades. Similarly, the masses that were denied education won’t be able to be integrated into the skilled workforce because the government decrees that it must be so. Transformation also isn’t the reversal of circumstances by force or even by clandestine guidance over time. That’s vengeance.

While a lot of opportunities have been lost to transform South Africa in the last 14 years, some programmes are in place and doing well. Education is still the area that needs the most attention when it comes to transformation, though. Education fights poverty, not campaigns and charity. Education builds managers, brokers, actuaries, engineers, accountants and scientists. Opportunities in South Africa abound, and the workers are few. Except if you form part of the unskilled majority — there the competition is tough and you’re not just fighting your fellow countrymen for jobs, but immigrants that work for cheaper too.

As we say in South Africa: “Eish!” Typically this interjection is followed by raucous laughter after such a massive dis that secures the dissers obvious victory (as well as asserts his superior manhood) over the dissee.

John Minto was the national co-ordinator of the Halt All Racist Tours movement during the 1981 Springbok tour to New Zealand.

According to News24 Mr Minto told the Christchurch Press the following:

“(South Africa) was the democratic country with so much hope and I think for so many people it’s been the deepest of disappointments, and certainly it has been for me.

“I’m just deeply dismayed at what’s happened.”

In an open letter to President Thabo Mbeki, Minto also said, “When we protested and marched into police batons and barbed wire here in the struggle against apartheid, we were not fighting for a small black elite to become millionaires.

“We were fighting for a better South Africa for all its citizens. The faces at the top have changed from white to black but the substance of change is an illusion.”

Here’s hoping that if enough of the right people (such as old anti-Apartheid activists and the growing black middle class) keep complaining, someone will start listening. At the very least here’s hoping that enough people wake up in time to rock the vote.

I say “initially” because Carte Blanche has opened a nice big, juicy can of worms tonight with their insert entitled “Eskom’s darkest hour.” For those not in the know, Eskom is South Africa’s only electricity-providing utility.

Now to be fair, I don’t regard Carte Blanche as a shining star of investigative journalism. Sometimes they’re just another hype machine, but sometimes they deliver blogworthy stuff ;-D.

My stance today is that while there is likely a major skill-shortage in Eskom (and various other businesses/sectors in South Africa), that is not what has lead us to the point where rolling blackouts are an every day occurance. Once again it’s profiteering gluttony. Capitalism gone mad. Now don’t get me wrong:

1. Capitalism is not necessarily bad; and
2. The skill-shortage caused by government’s aggressive affirmative action (AA) and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policies was an attempt to force change too fast that blew up in their face.

That said, dear reader, please hear me out.

Carte Blanche showed tonight how aggressive affirmative action policies caused a major skills defecit at Eskom. All Seffricans (or Saffers, or whatever we’re called/call ourselves nowadays) know by now that this resulted in not being able to bring mothballed power stations back online in good time as well as not being able to exact repairs on Koeberg’s reactors. In fact, I believe that the CEO of ESKOM went so far as to say that the lack of expertise causes delays in repair to normal power stations and substations as well.

But beyond all that, they showed the empty coal stockpiles of two of our coal power plants. One was at Majuba and the other was near it (but the name eludes me, see [1] for a list).

So regardless of skills shortages and all the blame so liberally piled on BEE and AA by the White population (as always, I feel that I am only qualified to generalise with regard to whites), there simply isn’t enough coal to power at least two of our plants. So what are we going to run the 3 coal plants on that are being re-commissioned?

Carte Blanche drew attention to the fact that Eskom has been blaming the recent continual rainfalls for making the coal wet [2] and hence causing a coal shortage. It seems that, in fact, that was a cover story for not having coal at all [3] [4].

Two men in the coal transport industry (both white, to racialise things) who operate(d) a BEE compliant company outlined how Eskom wasn’t willing to pay enough money for the transport of coal. Evidently Eskom paid middle-men R0.46 per tonne per kilometre and the middle-men in turn paid their sub-contractors R0.40/T/km. Besides the fact that these prices made for an unattractive business venture, they were not adjusted to take rising fuel prices. Coal transporters went from showing small profits to not even covering their overheads.

So here’s my take on it. We all know the stories of Eskom’s top management getting fat bonuses [4]. Few of us know that the cost of coal has increased thanks to the increased demand [5] [6]. This is so much so that the actions of the Chinese government to prevent an increase in electricty costs has caused a similar electricity crisis in China to the one we have in South Africa.

There is a rule in business that states that a cent saved is worth more than a cent earned. This is because savings basically have a 100% gross margin whereas earnings have to cover the costs of generating those earnings first. Essentially Eskom mothballed a few power stations which allowed a greater downsizing of their staff because it was running “inefficiently.” This obviously saves on overhead cost which increases profits. Furthermore it’s a little known fact that the two greatest costs of operating a coal power plant is the coal (shock, horror) and the labour. Evidently the fuel (coal) is the greatest cost driver of the two. So in order to save on overheads, Eskom let the stockpiles deminish (probably with the intention of keeping them at some optimal level) and refused to pay contractors more than R0.46/T/km to transport the coal.

Since top-management performance bonuses are dependant on profits while grunt performance bonuses are dependant on operations, management gets R20m+ or so in bonuses per year while the non-executive employees see less than 7% of the total money spent on bonuses (though there should obviously more non-execs than execs).

And so the basic rules of business (buy low, sell high) have screwed us, die gepeupel (the plebs/man-on-the-street), just as it did with Telkom.

Our deputy president is also given some of the blame for her short-sightedness in not allowing Eskom to build additional plants many moons ago. But I can imagine (and this is pure speculation) how the deputy president (then minister of energy) and her advisors looked at the proposal and asked “why?” With 3 plants mothballed and the rest not operating at optimal generating capacity (evidently running a plant at 100% constantly isn’t good for it, so let’s assume 60-80% of capacity is optimal), why would Eskom need to build new ones?

Perhaps this whole crisis is Eskom trying to force government’s hand into letting Eskom move the core of South Africa’s generating capacity to a more cost-effectiven technology. Like maybe something nuclear. And maybe it is just a consequence of the short-sightedness and greed of a few who are now going to pay for the damage they have wrought. Our mines are not producing, the dairy industry will have lost roughly R200m this month.

Yep, if executive heads don’t roll over this one I wouldn’t be surprised if an angry mob invites Madame L’Guillotine to a party outside Eskom’s offices…

[1] Eskom #List of power stations, WikiPedia [Accessed: 27 January 2008].

[2] Wet coal threatens Eskom power output, BusinessReport, Justin Brown. 24 January 2008 [Accessed: 27 January 2008].

[3] Eskom running out of coal?, MyADSL & MyBroadband forums, Syndyre. 25 January 2008 [Accessed 27 January 2008].

[4] Eskom’s bloated gravy train, MoneyWeb, Barry Sergeant. 23 January 2008 [Accessed: 27 January 2008].

[5] More coal price increases on the way, says senior analyst, Mining Weekly Online, Leandi Rostoll. 25 January 2008 [Accessed: 27 January 2008].

[6] China experience it’s share of power shortages, SABC news, Reuters. 27 January 2008 [Accessed: 27 January 2008].

[7] No jokes about Eskom, please, The Sunday Independent @ iol.co.za, Karen Bliksem. 27 January 2008 [Accessed: 27 January 2008].

I’m going to cleverly avoid the topic of white women in affirmative action by picking some related topic and focussing on that.

First I was going to disagree about the choice of the word ‘obsessed’ and argue that very few South African are, in fact, obsessed about race. That only those with a roof overhead, food on the table, running water and electricity have the luxury of obsessing about race.

But then I saw a fantastic opportunity: Nitpicking about the word ‘race!’

As much as I hate nitpicking about definitions, this one is too glaring to let through. South Africa isn’t obsessed about race. We’re obsessed about skin colour. Race is a disputed term that should not be used in law when the particular pigmentation of skin is the physical trait being referred to.

When we discuss race we’re not referring to genetic traits that can be determined scientifically. We’re not referring to the different cultural groups people of the same skin colour may belong to. We’re not even talking of nationality. We mean skin colour and should say “skin colour.”

Now that said, here’s something even more controversial for the pot. Being “Previously Disadvantaged” actually has nothing to do with being disadvantaged. Previously or otherwise. It has to do with skin colour. Always has. The number of white women employed by a company never affected the average South African’s perception of it’s ‘transformation.’

Furthermore, I submit into evidence the issue of the bursary awarded to Judge John Hlophe’s son. Funny how he’s always called that first and then by his name: Thuthuka Hlophe. This upstanding young man was judged to be “previously disadvantaged” but not “on the monetary side.”

What does that mean, exactly? It means he has the right skin colour in addition to being qualified. He was a means for the firm to have their “racial” statistics look good.

Meanwhile there are people of the “right” skin colour that are really disadvantaged. They were previously disadvantaged and now they are presently disadvantaged. They didn’t have the luxury of going to decent schools, let alone university. They don’t even have the luxury of sending their children to decent schools so that they may one day go to univirsity/college and be able to compete with others on an equal footing. They are qualified only for underpaid, unskilled work. But they can’t be paid more because the skilled workforce that pays them can’t afford to pay them more. Forcing higher pay on unskilled labour will only cause more unskilled workers to be unemployed.

Let’s face it. There is no quick-fix to help people out of poverty. No amount of BEE or AA will address the disadvantage at which many people are facing modern life. What is needed, what was needed from the very beginning was not only that the disadvantaged be given preference, but that they also be given training. But that is not a trivial problem. It involves the school and university systems. Teachers, lecturers, and a pile of money to employ and train them all. It involves bringing quality education to disadvantaged areas, or the disadvantaged people to quality academic institutions. And all this money and time pumped into the education system and disadvantaged people will not yield results for many, many years.

What opportunities are being offered to these disadvantaged individuals to not remain unskilled?

The title of this post is a term coined at the MyBroadband forums.

Unlike most of the broadband-deprived masses of South Africa I’m not a Telkom basher. Allow me to qualify that, lest I be misunderstood. I’ve received bad service from them before and complained. But I haven’t ever delivered statements like “Telkom is crippling the small business and hampering economic growth.”

Up until recently I argued that the cost and restrictions on broadband in South Africa were necessary due to the limited market and infrastructure. In a country where everyone doesn’t even have a landline and the minority use the Internet at home how can you expect broadband to be cheap? That said, I never quite understood why the cost of normal telecommunications (fixed-line and mobile) is so expensive. Another nagging thought was that even though not everyone had access to a fixed-line service, nearly everyone in the country (including beggars) have a cell phone.

So we don’t mince definitions, I’m going to be speaking of broadband in Telkom’s terms. Which is to say, anything 192kbps and up is broadband.

South Africa’s Internet access (and broadband Internet in particular) is provided by the SAT3/WASC and SAFE undersea cable systems that meet at Melkbosstrand in South Africa. As far as I know SAT-1 and SAT-2 are still in service. Given the nature of the cable systems, I assumed that they are expensive to maintain and/or access costs are quite high.

I would also argue that the amount of bandwidth available on the cable systems is limited. That’s why Telkom needs to regulate consumer bandwidth use by using the “capping” system it employed. If Telkom allowed too many ADSL (or other broadband) subscribers the speed of the service would degrade and consumers would be complaining about the bad service rather than the expensive price.

This argument made sense to me, and still does to an extent. But an article a read recently completely changed my view of Telkom. It was printed in the BusinessReport (which is published in the Pretoria News, I think) on 24 August 2007 and is available online.

Now I feel that if the information contained in the journal article referenced in the BusinessReport article (“Another instance where privatisation trumped liberalisation: the politics of telecommunications reform in South Africa – a ten year retrospective” by Willie Currie and Robert Horwitz) is accurate, the argument above is invalidated. And it should be accurate because I guess you can get in a lot of trouble for saying nasty things about Telkom that aren’t true.

Basically, the Thintana Consortium that bought the South African government’s 30% share in Telkom in 1997 arranged it so they would be above South African law for the 5 year exclusivity period the government agreed to give Telkom to “prepare for competition.” The consortium consisted of SBC (a US-based telecoms group) and Telekom Malaysia. Evidently the authors of the article were interviewed last year and stated that SBC sent it’s whole corporate office legislative team (usually based in San Antonio, Texas) to South Africa to help draft the Telecommunications Act.

Evidently SBCs strategy was to maximise the investment of Thinthana during the 5 year exclusivity period and then sell out. It is estimated that the 30% stake was bought for R5.45 billion and was sold in 2004 for a total of R12.7 billion. This does not include the dividends or what is called management fees in the article over the 6.5 year period.

There are probably many things I don’t understand about economics and “The Big Picture” but couldn’t a billion or two USD (according to WikiPedia on 5 September 2007) of Telkom’s annual profits be spared? Maybe it’s not enough for international infrastructure development… but national infrastructure? What about decreasing line, installation and call costs so that more people can have access to a phone? All this will cost the investors some of their precious profit but maybe, just maybe, providing access to more people will increase revenue? And over time that could probably translate into profit?

Obviously not because if it were profitable to provide the South African people decent service for a decent price it would have been done already.

Upon discovering that I’m South African the American expresses a desire to learn more of South Africa as he will be visiting the place soon on business. Unfortunately I only had about 2 minutes to this guy’s next stop. All I got to talk about was the crime and where not to go and when not to go there. I had to field questions such as “Is it really that bad?” I tried to reassure him that his contact person(s) in South Africa would know all these things, take good care of him, and that he should listen to their advice about in and around Johannesburg. And then we were at his stop.

Which brings me to our first interactive session. A challenge! You have 2 minutes to tell a foreigner travelling to South Africa about it. You know where he’s going and for the purposes of this challenge you may choose any city/province/region. Go!