The Black IT Forum (BITF) has joined a group of nine other black business organisations in condemning a recent court ruling that Chinese South Africans should benefit from broad based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE)
The Pretoria High Court ruling found that as Chinese South Africans were considered coloured under Apartheid, they should qualify as beneficiaries under the BBBEE Act and the Employment Equity Act.
According to the black business and professional organisation grouping - lead by the National African Federation Chamber of Commerce (NAFCOC), and including the BITF, Black Management Forum (BMF) and the Black Lawyers Association (BLA) - the ruling was "irrational" and "inexplicable".
Addressing the media yesterday, NAFCOC president Buhle Mthethwa said the SA government and organised business should "express their strong disapproval and disappointment with this shocking decision.
"We reiterate our conviction that BEE and employment equity interventions should primarily benefit the following black groups: Indian, African, [and] Coloured. Chinese are not Coloured," she said.
The BITF did not want to be drawn on its specific stance on the matter, referring to the general position taken by the ten organisations.
This was explained by NAFCOC Gauteng treasurer, Kganare Lefoka: "Pre-1994 most people faced some form of discrimination, but we can't open the flood-gates. For example, now the Jewish and Hispanic people can claim they are entitled to qualify for BBBEE."
According to Lefoka, "Equity legislation is not aimed at all who faced discriminations - it is informed by socio-economic conditions, and who suffered the most."
Mthethwa said even though the black organisations were not respondents in the initial arguments between the Chinese community and the Departments of Labour and Trade and Industry; they are to lobby government to appeal the court's decision.
In addition, they would consider all legal option to oppose the court ruling, including taking the matter to court themselves, if need be.
According to Mthethwa, "The identification of Africans, Coloureds and Indians [and not Chinese] as major beneficiaries of BBBEE and Employment Equity is based on a sophisticated socio-economic analysis that took into consideration poor access to quality education, lack of economic access, poor living conditions, etcetera.
"The economic transformation efforts sought to deal with the primary defining force of apartheid discrimination, which expressed itself through the socio-economic oppression of Africans, Indians and Coloureds (as historically defined), hence their over-representation and visibility in the anti-apartheid struggle."
Mthethwa said the black organisations were "extremely disappointed" with the South African government for its failure to oppose the legal application by the Chinese community.
Vehement opposition
However, political commentator Steven Freidman says he fails to understand the argument put forward by NAFCOC and its partners. "Jewish people, and Italians, and the Portuguese, were classified as whites, so under apartheid they were not denied their rights," he says. "The Chinese were clearly discriminated against."
Another political commentator, Aubrey Matshiqi, believes that Chinese South Africans should qualify for BBBEE. "Chinese people, like white women, were previously disadvantaged - there can be no quibble about that - and there must be redress," says Matshiqi.
"The question is whether their redress should be the same as for others, such as African blacks - do we now start applying some kind of hierarchy? Do we ask if they were as oppressed as others?"
Matshiqi explains that the ANC's policy documents do make allowance for African blacks being "more disadvantaged" than others, such as Indians and Coloured, through a so-called "hierarchy of oppression".
Related story:
Black enough for WiMax?
Share