LETTERS | Migrant article hits a raw nerve

S’thembiso Msomi’s article “The continent is watching South Africa” (July 26) worked on my conscience.

At first I tried to set it aside, but it persisted because Gugu Motlanthe and Mcebisi Jonas hit on a raw nerve!

The migrant crisis, despite its fundamental causes in South Africa’s social fabric and the socioeconomic factors of a hijacked local economy, will remain a blight on post-apartheid political life, given the role African countries and people played against the apartheid state.

Two things drove me to write this letter. First is Jonas’s view that despite what migration has brought to South Africa, social solidarity should not be allowed to disintegrate. Second is Motlanthe’s view that if we retreat from Pan-African solidarity, “future generations will inherit the cost of our inertia”.

To keep migration under control, migrants must be documented, and there must be rules in place in terms of what they may and may not do, in order to keep the economy in the hands of locals and remove the social tensions and attitudes that exist among Africans in South Africa.

Motlanthe states that the government “cannot continue governing by denial”, and this adds credence to her view that what we do today will affect future generations. As progenitors of coming generations, care should therefore be taken that we do the right things and take and implement the correct decisions on immigration.

I’ve personally been against migration because of the social evils it has brought into our country. But I sensitised the word “foreigners”, preferring “migrants”, and fully supported March and March. Because of the drugs that have infested our communities, I also developed anti-Nigerian migrant feelings.

However, as a writer once pointed out in your letters column, after the migrants have left South Africa, we shall still be faced with a problem. And this problem, as Motlanthe said, is a government in denial.

The laissez-faire way of governance that the Madlanga commission is exposing has to be a thing of the past, and in its place must be a government that’s anti-corruption, with MPs who are beyond reproach. We must also have provincial and local government personnel who are accountable to the people.

— Moikwatlhai Seitisho, Phuthaditjhaba

Another shocking chapter in the PIC saga

Your newspaper deserves the sincere thanks of many Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) pensioners for giving front-page prominence on July 26 to yet another shocking chapter in the ongoing saga at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC).

I refer to it as a chapter because it is abundantly clear that this is not the end of the story. More chapters are likely. Indeed, we may already be witnessing the next one, as the PIC itself appears to be falling apart. If that is the case, perhaps it is a matter of good riddance.

The Mpati commission recommended as far back as 2020 that political influence should be removed from the PIC. The government was evidently unwilling to implement this recommendation, and it has even been alleged that parliament was misled regarding the commission’s findings.

Time and again, the PIC has demonstrated that it is not a suitable manager of pensioners’ retirement savings. The Mpati commission exposed numerous instances of poor governance and serious shortcomings. Yet this did not prevent the PIC from continuing to gamble with money that belongs to millions of pensioners.

The problems at the PIC did not begin yesterday. Billions of rands have already been lost, and there is little reason to believe that this will change while the PIC continues to act as the GEPF’s asset manager.

This also raises serious questions about the role of the GEPF board of trustees. It was this cadre-controlled board that appointed the PIC as the fund’s asset manager. The trustees were well aware of the substantial losses and repeated governance failures associated with the PIC, yet they nevertheless renewed its mandate.

Should the members of the GEPF board of trustees not be held personally accountable for the billions of rands that have been lost under their stewardship?

The pension savings of public servants deserve competent, independent and accountable management — not political interference and repeated financial disasters.

— Adamus P Stemmet, Ridgeworth

Migrant article hits a raw nerve

S’thembiso Msomi’s article “The continent is watching South Africa” (July 26) worked on my conscience.

At first I tried to set it aside, but it persisted because Gugu Motlanthe and Mcebisi Jonas hit on a raw nerve!

The migrant crisis, despite its fundamental causes in South Africa’s social fabric and the socioeconomic factors of a hijacked local economy, will remain a blight on post-apartheid political life, given the role African countries and people played against the apartheid state.

Two things drove me to write this letter. First is Jonas’s view that despite what migration has brought to South Africa, social solidarity should not be allowed to disintegrate. Second is Motlanthe’s view that if we retreat from Pan-African solidarity, “future generations will inherit the cost of our inertia”.

To keep migration under control, migrants must be documented, and there must be rules in place in terms of what they may and may not do, in order to keep the economy in the hands of locals and remove the social tensions and attitudes that exist among Africans in South Africa.

Motlanthe states that the government “cannot continue governing by denial”, and this adds credence to her view that what we do today will affect future generations. As progenitors of coming generations, care should therefore be taken that we do the right things and take and implement the correct decisions on immigration.

I’ve personally been against migration because of the social evils it has brought into our country. But I sensitised the word “foreigners”, preferring “migrants”, and fully supported March and March. Because of the drugs that have infested our communities, I also developed anti-Nigerian migrant feelings.

However, as a writer once pointed out in your letters column, after the migrants have left South Africa, we shall still be faced with a problem. And this problem, as Motlanthe said, is a government in denial.

The laissez-faire way of governance that the Madlanga commission is exposing has to be a thing of the past, and in its place must be a government that’s anti-corruption, with MPs who are beyond reproach. We must also have provincial and local government personnel who are accountable to the people.

— Moikwatlhai Seitisho, Phuthaditjhaba

Real estate tips for the minister

Public works minister Dean Macpherson has reportedly identified thousands of real estate properties owned by the government that are idle. He says he is developing a plan to put them to work.

It’s understood that he would like to bundle them up into a real estate portfolio which would be professionally managed to secure earnings for the state.

Well done to Macpherson for taking this issue in hand. However, I do not believe he has chosen the best solution to the problem. The government should not be in the real estate business.

The first step for dealing with the problem of underutilised government real estate at a national, provincial or municipal level, and indeed for any private underutilised real estate, is to revert to site value rating (SVR) as the basis of collection of municipal rates. This means that only the value of the land is used to calculate the municipal rates that are due.

Up until the 2004 Local Government Municipal Rates Act, Johannesburg, among other municipalities, used this system. In the 1980s, Godfrey Dunkley conducted two studies to compare the development of South African towns that used SVR as the basis for setting rates and those that didn’t. The results were clear. The towns relying on SVR as the basis for allocating revenue developed faster over a meaningful term than those that didn’t.

One of the several benefits is that landowners would be incentivised to develop land, and the value of ongoing improvements like buildings would not be levied by municipalities.

The second step in resolving the problem of underutilised government real estate is the alternative suggested to Macpherson.

Rather than hold on to undeveloped land, the government should auction it for sale at zero price but subject to payment of a monthly levy to the government. This would establish the prevailing market value. The amount of levy is actually what will be the monetary basis of the bid. The bid winner will then own the land with perpetual tenure of it, the monthly levy for which, after an initial period of, say, 10 years, would thereafter always be based on the prevailing (usually increasing) value of the land, which would be established by ongoing transactions in the vicinity. They can develop the land and not be rated by the municipality on the value of the improvements, as SVR would be the basis of the calculation.

In the case of government real estate with buildings, the approach is the same, except that bidders will additionally value the buildings or alternatively attach zero value to them if they instead wish to demolish and redevelop.

— Robert Stewart, Stanford

Where is the Sasol gas?

Is Sasol still on the ball? I doubt it, because its main mission was to offset global oil uncertainties and disasters such as those happening at present. Having sourced a rudimentary technology from Nazi Germany, Sasol’s vision was really ambitious. About 20 years ago, one energy analyst said oil from Sasol cushioned motorists from unforeseen oil fluctuations by about 30%. Is it still so? Or should they just close shop?

On SAFM this week an energy analyst reiterated that Sasol will be cutting off LNPG/LPG come 2027 because the flow from Mozambique has decreased. The question is, where is the gas they produce?

The fires above the pipes at Sasol plants are actually gas burning. So there is gas at Sasol.

I smell a rat.

— Buang Lairi, Zastron