‘Militêre gebreke skaad SA leiersrol’

Geen Gevaar Geen behoftes Geen lugvaart..............

2013-03-21 22:36


Erika Gibson



Ramstein-lugmagbasis (Duitsland). – Suid-Afrika en sy weermag bly die belangrikste voorbeeld van ekonomiese vooruitgang en leierskap in Afrika, maar sekere gebreke in sy militêre mondering kan sy posisie benadeel.

So kan ’n gebrek aan veral lugvervoer­vermoë Suid-Afrika se invloed oorgrens en elders in die streek drasties verminder.

Brig.genl. Thomas Sharpy, hoof van beleidsbeplanning in die Amerikaanse lugmag in Europa en Afrika, het tydens ’n voorligting oor die Amerikaanse Africom-bevelshoofkwartier (Africom) gesê die VSA sal altyd bereid wees om Suid-Afrika met sy “uitdagings” te help.

Hy het gereageer op ’n vraag oor die gevolge van die Suid-Afrikaanse lugmag se onvermoë om sy uitgediende lugvervoervermoë gou te vervang. 

Die huidige vloot vragvliegtuie sal vanjaar 50 jaar oud wees en die Dakotas, wat beperkte maritieme patrollies kan doen, is reeds meer as 70 jaar oud.

Volgens Sharpy is die grootste gevaar dat ’n lugmag – veral een in Afrika – bitter moeilik weer ’n vermoë sal kan opbou as dit eers verlore gegaan het. 

Daarom is dit beter om minstens ’n beperkte vermoë aan die gang te hou as om dit tot niet te laat gaan.

Om ’n vegvliegtuigvermoë byvoorbeeld heeltemal af te skaf het op kort termyn dalk sin, maar as daar weer ’n behoefte daaraan ontstaan, sal die heropbou daarvan geweldig duur wees. 

“Die ander probleem wat ons in Afrika teëkom, is dat lande talle verskillende soorte vliegtuie aan die gang probeer hou pleks van om te standaardiseer. 

Deur eerder ’n veelsydiger vliegtuig vir meer rolle te gebruik met minder instandhoudingskoste het meer sin,” het hy gesê. 

Volgens hom is dit verblydend dat Suid-Afrika en sy weermag gretig is om by lande soos die VSA te leer. 

So is daar onlangs ’n ooreenkoms gesluit waarvolgens onder-offisiere van die weermag in die VSA sekere kursusse sal gaan doen en die VSA op sy beurt van sy onder-offisiere sal stuur om die Suid-Afrikaanse weergawe van die kursusse te doen.

Volgens Sharky is daar geen planne vir Africom om enige permanente basisse in Afrika te vestig nie. 

Africom het wel ooreenkomste met lande waarvolgens die Amerikaanse lugmag sekere basisse kan gebruik wanneer nood, rampe of konfliksituasies dit vereis. 

Beeld


Kommentaar deur Sonny

Dalk sal ons n beroep op Bob Mugabe maak om ons ou 'Choppers" aan ons te leen?

Of ons kan almal met SAA oorlog toe vlieg.

Die hele kabinet gebruik hulle mos gereeld!

DALK KAN ONS "BOKRY!"

Africom still struggling to win SA's blessing

No Fear No Favour No SA Mercenaries in Africa...........

http://youtu.be/8qfEnAny4PI

21 MAR 2013 19:36 - MMANALEDI MATABOGE

The United States Africa Command says it will respect African countries that do not wish to have American soldiers operating from their countries.

United States Africa Command (Africom) is a combatant organ of the US defence department established specifically to work with militaries of African countries to strengthen their defence capabilities through skills training, joint exercises and sometimes conducts military operations when requested to by an African country.

In an interview with South African journalists touring Africom's headquarters in Stuttgart Germany, the organisation's commander, General Carter Ham, said Africom and the US government are yet to successfully change the hostile attitude some Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries have against Africom, particularly South Africa – one of the key countries in the continent that advocates for an African solution for African challenges.

"There remains a high degree of skepticism within South Africa," Ham said. "And we too believe in an African solution for Africa, but we think we can help. When invited by governments we think we can work together well."

The outgoing Africom Commander however said the organisation respects South Africa's position on the presence of America's forces on the continent.

"We don't have to go where we are not wanted. We recognise sovereignty. We've got no intention of pushing ourselves into a place where we're not wanted."

Ham said though the US has "not officially" succeeded in changing South Africa's attitude and that Africom has got "a good relationship with the South African National Defence Force [Sandf]. When South Africa says not so, fast we'll maintain the military-to-military relationship that we have with the Sandf."

Botswana willing host
Throughout the week Africom leaders told of how they regard the Sandf as one of their key strategic partners in Africa because of the defence force's capability and South Africa's influence in Africa.

As Ham was giving an interview in Germany, ambassador Chris Dell, the Africom civilian deputy commander, was in South Africa.

Key SADC countries including South Africa are uncomfortable with having United States forces based in Africa for fear that the US might be seeking to take control of the continent. The hostility has spread to Botswana which has for years been suspected of willing to host an Africom military base.

Last year former ANC deputy secretary general Thandi Modise was quoted as having told the Botswana National Front that there are some leaders within SADC who "want to host people who want to hurt us. They think as long as they can get funding from these western people they are fine. But I can tell you that we are not happy at all".

The diplomatic cable that Wikileaks published two years ago claiming that Botswana was interested in hosting Africom troops also increased concern among SADC countries.

On Thursday Ham strongly denied that Africom is seeking to build a home in Botswana.

"We have been in Botswana and Botswana is a very good partner of ours, but there are absolutely no discussions about setting up a military base there."

Relationship with South Africa
Africom appears to have a good relationship with east and west African countries, with it's largest force of around 2 000 troops based in Djibouti, where Ham said they are helping to strengthen east African defence forces.

The relationship with SADC is however yet to blossom into what Africom wishes to have.

"Broadly in the [SADC] region I'd like to see the relationship growing. That's tough for us right now because of Zimbabwe, but I think we are on a pretty positive trajectory with most of SADC countries," said the outgoing Africom commander.

As for an Africom relationship with South Africa, Ham believes there is an opportunity for an improvement.

"We are not always going to agree, we are two big countries, but that's okay," he said.

He however said for the majority of big issues such as democracy and human rights the US and Africom are happy with the relationship with South Africa.

Africom's general objective is to protect US interests in African countries. Ham however said the US is not competing with other countries that have taken military interest in Africa such as China.

"We are competing for economic position and influence, but I don't see competition in a military way. I wouldn't see it as adversarial relations, it's more economic and diplomatic relations. "

Mail and Guardian

COMMENTS BY SONNY.

ALL THE SANDF UNIFORMS IN THE CAR.

How many SA mercenaries are being hired by Zuma and the ANC lead government to do their dirty work

in Africa under the flag of Security Companies similar to the USA Black Ops and Executive Outcomes?

We all know they are employed on most Diamond and Uranium (Cobalt) mines in the DRC, Zambia,

Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

THE PROTRACTED "ARMS DEAL."

Is Zuma working in unison with the CIA or RUSSIA.

The NPA has the mandate to prosecute Mercenaries or ignore their existence.

ALBERT BLAKE in his BoereVerraaier said it all.

Cardinal Wilfred Napier and the mob

David Bullard

20 March 2013

David Bullard on the problem with most debate (if you can call it that) on Twitter

How to silence a Cardinal

South Africa's Cardinal Wilfred Napier seems to have got himself into a spot of bother. Interviewed by the leftist BBC he suggested that paedophilia wasn't a crime but a sickness....or, at least, that's how it came over.

Now anybody with even a passing acquaintance with the media will know that there is such a thing as editing. This means that a half hour interview with Cardinal Napier will probably be reduced to five or ten minutes. Those five or ten minutes need to be as spicy as possible because, let's face it, even the BBC has competition these days and the challenge is to grab the public's attention in as sensational manner as possible.

What better, in the week a new Pope is elected, than a senior member of the Roman Catholic church appearing to defend one of the sins the church is frequently accused of? Better still, the guy doing the defending is from South Africa which suggests that this country doesn't take sex crimes against children seriously. After all, if some reports are to be believed, a third of our "girl children" (dreadful expression) get pregnant at school and a substantial percentage are HIV positive.

Not surprisingly there was an outcry over Napier's comments and the unfortunate Cardinal was thrown to the hyenas. These days you can measure the immediate effect of a comment like Cardinal Napier's on Twitter. Predictably the usual suspects took to their computer keyboards to express their disgust at Napier's comments without even bothering to consider whether they were taken out of context or edited for effect. The hate campaign gathered pace and eventually Napier was forced to apologise for his comments.

Being "forced" to apologise for something you have allegedly said or done is one of the great triumphs of our modern age. It gives what I like to refer to as the "gibbering classes" a sense of power in their otherwise empty lives. It doesn't matter how crass or uninformed their comments are on Twitter providing they contribute to a mob frenzy and force that apology.

One prolific female columnist even suggested that "sugar daddies are paedophiles" on her Twitter page. I was going to name and shame her but decided not to because, like most journos these days, the threat of unemployment constantly hangs over her and maybe she wasn't thinking straight.

But not thinking straight seems to be what Twitter is all about. Take the Tweet that sugar daddies are paedophiles for example. How can that possibly be so? A sugar daddy is a term used to describe an older man who has the financial resources to attract much younger women; the suggestion being that the majority of attractive young girls would rather go to bed with someone of their own age than a wrinkled old prune of a man.

Rupert Murdoch is a perfect example of a sugar daddy. Thankfully there are still beautiful young women around who can be tempted to spend their lives with rich old codgers and put up a convincing pretence that they are in love. Bernie Ecclestone is another fine example of sugar-daddydom.

The guy is virtually a midget and as rich as Croesus but still can't afford a decent wig and yet he has pulled some stunners in his time. Don't tell me it's for his matinee idol good looks and his rapier like wit. But, revolting as some of these sugar daddies may be, they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as paedophiles. So why did the unnamed female columnist even bother to make such a dumb comment (other than the fact that she's not sugar daddy material)?

The problem with most debate (if you can call it that) on Twitter is that it is emotional not rational. As soon as I expressed qualified support for Cardinal Napier I was "unfollowed" by someone. For those of you who have better things to do than follow Twitter this is akin to excommunication or not being offered a sweet by someone who was your best friend at school yesterday.

Now that I number my Twitter followers in the thousands rather than the hundreds this wasn't too psychologically damaging but I admit to disappointment that someone who seems sane in all other respects can sever connections over a difference of opinion. In fact, I wasn't even permitted to put forward my argument in defence of Cardinal Napier because "paedophilia is such a serious thing that there can be no argument".

Cardinal Napier may well be making a good point when he refers to paedophilia as a sickness. What he never suggested was that acts of paedophilia should not be prosecuted but his argument was drowned out by the politically correct mob frenzy which was, in turn, fanned by a sensationalist media.

If we really are serious about dealing with these problems in South Africa we should at least be prepared to hear all sides of an argument, whether we agree with them or not. By forcing Cardinal Napier to apologise we have unjustly labelled him guilty of defending paedophiles and effectively ruled him out of any future debate on this topic.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS Author: Malcolm Rees| 20 March 2013 16:28 What is a get-rich-quick scheme?

Lessons from SA’s Ponzi pandemic, following Defencex.

JOHANNESBURG - The court decision to freeze bank accounts linked to the 2% a day scheme, Defencex, may well mark the collapse of SA’s latest get-rich-quick scheme.

The move follows a report submitted by Standard Bank to the Financial Intelligence Centre, which stated that activities on accounts linked to Net Income Solutions, which is a parent to Defencex, are suggestive of a pyramid scheme.

Investors are now unable to make deposits into the scheme or to withdraw their promised magnificent returns according the scheme’s mastermind, Chris Walker. Surprisingly, members have reacted to this news with an outrage directed not at Walker or at Defencex but at the banks, media and government.

Unfortunately, even if it is shown that Defencex is in fact a Ponzi scheme, its investors will not be the first nor the last to fall victim to this type of illegal business practice.

SA has a long, fertile history of quite extravagant get-rich-quick schemes, some of which had been valued at hundreds of millions, if not billions, of rands.

Tanya Woker is the former vice-chairperson of the Department of Trade and Industry’s Consumer Affairs Committee, a body responsible for rooting out prohibited business practices prior to the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in 2011. She recalls hearing reports of an average of five different suspect schemes a month during her tenure and believes that the situation has only gotten worse.

While sophisticated schemes succeed in taking money from SA’s economic elite, the country’s socio-economic disparities create prime breeding ground for “opportunists” looking to take advantage of the financial desperation of the poor, she says.

In an effort to help potential investors identify potential get-rich-quick schemes, this two-part series aims to describe what type of get-rich-quick schemes are prevalent in SA, how they work and how to identify them before it’s too late.

What is a get-rich-quick scheme?

By South African law there are three prohibited archetypal forms of get-rich-quick schemes.

These include pyramid schemes, chain-mail schemes (which have largely gone out of fashion) and what are known locally as money multiplication (Ponzi) schemes.

The basic structures of these schemes are relatively simple.

There are, however, countless variations on these three basic models, with the more sophisticated schemes often driving some revenue through the sale of legitimate products or through actual investments.

The larger and more ‘successful’ schemes typically operate in a hybrid-type manner, blending apparently genuine product or investment initiatives on the front-end with illegal financial structures on the back-end. This means that they try to look like legal businesses on the surface, but the financial structures they use to generate profits are illegal.

A common example of this type of hybrid, where the boundaries between legitimate business and illegal scams can be blurred, are Multilevel Marketing Companies which blend product sales with the recruitment commissions indicative of a pyramid scheme.

The complexity and sophistication of many modern-day schemes means that on face value they can be difficult to distinguish from actual legitimate businesses; SA’s Tannenbaum and Sharemax cases and, internationally, the MadoffPonzi scheme, are good examples of this.

However, all illegitimate schemes share one defining characteristic and that is that the majority of the returns enjoyed by investors are generated not through any underlying value-adding entrepreneurial or investment activity, but simply through the re-distribution of new members’ money to already exiting members.

In short the money you ‘make’ from involvement in one of these schemes is simply money taken from another member of the scheme.

It is therefore impossible for every member of the scheme to make money and as the business itself has costs and the schemes’ mastermind expects a handsome fee for his work, on average, members of a scheme must lose money.

One well-publicised example of a scheme with very similar characteristics to Defencex is Miracle 2000.

Pyramid schemes

Pyramid schemes, which primarily generate cash through recruitment commissions, are rather common in SA, says Woker.

In a pyramid scheme, any new member joining the pyramid would need to pay a fee and that fee would go towards generating the profits for members’ higher-up in the pyramid hierarchy and for the business itself.

The new member would also be asked to recruit additional members.

A proportion of the fee of those recruited members would go to the new member while some of it would go to the pre-existing members. This would process continues until there are not enough potential new members to sustain the business and the bottom falls out.

One example of such a scheme was the Newport Business Club which opened its doors in SA in October 1996, according to Woker.

An investigation into the scheme found that by July 1997 it had 6 354 members. Of those, 61% had not recouped any money at all from their involvement and 30% had lost money.

In contrast, each of the promoters earned over R16m.

Ponzi schemes

With Ponzi schemes investors are promised that if they invest an amount of money today they will at some later stage receive a significantly larger repayment.

Unlike pyramid schemes, Ponzi schemes do not have a hierarchical structure and generate revenue through repeated or once-off investments of varying amounts by members.

These investments are then directed to finance the interest pay-outs owed on investments made at an earlier date.

As Ponzi schemes effectively promise a set interest repayment on an investment, investors expect to earn in much the same way as they would with a bank deposit.

However, unlike a bank, investors would expect significant repayments on their investment which far exceed those one might expect from a bank.

In the case of Defencex, members were promised a 2%-a-day return, payable after 75 days. This is calculated at an effective annual interest rate of in excess of 600%.

With a bank one might expect to receive annual interest of around 6%.

Also unlike a bank, investments into a Ponzi have a very low likelihood of actually being repaid while the back-end financial structures of the two ‘businesses’ remain fundamentally different.

A traditional bank borrows from one individual at a low rate and lends to another at a higher rate. The difference between the cost it charges borrowers and the amount it pays depositors generates a profit for the bank.

In this way the bank facilitates a flow of money. Each R1 it lends it expects to eventually give back to the depositor and each R1 it borrows it expects to get back from the lender.

A Ponzi, however, simply takes money at the one end (new investments) and gives it out at the other (payouts on old investments and payments to the business and the promoter).

A Ponzi acts like a funnel, sucking up money to pay off members until there are not enough members to suck money from and the whole scheme implodes, leaving most members poorer than they were before.

Part two, on warnings signs of a Ponzi scheme, to follow.

Topics: ponzi, pyramid schemes, defencex, Tanya Woker, get-rich-quick

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Realcor se baas is bankrot

2013-03-19 23:08

• Artikelopsies
• Deel
• Kry Die Burger op

KAAPSTAD. – Deonette de Ridder, die sakevrou wat eens met groot planne R650miljoen van meestal bejaarde beleggers gevat het, het verdwyn.

Sy is gister in haar afwesigheid in die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof gesekwestreer.

De Ridder was die meesterbrein agter verskeie beleggingsmaatskappye wat met haar Realcor Groep verbind is en wat beleggings van 3000 mense ingevorder het om ’n spoghotel in Bloubergstrand te bou.

Sy het op 6 Maart aangedui dat sy self by gister se sekwestrasie-aansoek teen haar teenwoordig sou wees, maar sy kon nie gister deur die hof opgespoor word nie.

Waarnemende regter Keith Matthee het gelas dat De Ridder gesekwestreer word.

Absa het De Ridder laat sekwestreer vir skuld van R16,8miljoen.

Luidens ’n beëdigde verklaring wat vroeër ten tyde van die aansoek by die hof ingedien is, het De Ridder aangevoer sy het niks op haar naam nie, behalwe “klere en juwele” van R5000.

In ’n lys van bates wat De Ridder in 2009 saamgestel het, het sy in daardie stadium onder meer juwele van R300000, huisware van R700000 en R2,8miljoen in ’n bankrekening ge- had.

Makhosini Ndlovu, ’n kredietbestuurder van Absa, het in ’n beëdigde verklaring (wat die bank se rede vir die sekwestrasie-aansoek uiteensit) gesê De Ridder het “óf nie die waarheid gepraat oor al haar bates nie óf haar eiendom in ’n paar jaar heeltemal laat verdwyn”.

Absa hoop om met ’n sekwestrasie die regsmasjinerie wat daarmee gepaardgaan te gebruik om De Ridder persoonlik te ondervra en daardeur bates te probeer opspoor.

Letitia Field van Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs is die opdraggewende prokureur vir Absa. Sy het verskeie e-posse aan De Ridder gestuur oor gister se sekwestrasie-aansoek, het adv. Andrew Morrissey, ook vir Absa, gister in die hof gesê.

Dit was in dié e-posse met De Ridder waarin sy aangedui het dat sy self by die hof sal wees.

- Die Burger

• e-pos artikel
• Druk artikel
• KRY DIE BURGER OP:

The ANC is flushing out the unwanted

No Fear No Favour No Traitors...........

19 MAR 2013 00:00 - NICKOLAUS BAUER

ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe on Monday did his best to paint the ruling party's resolution to dissolve the executive committees of both Limpopo and the ANC Youth League as an exercise in restructuring.

He said the committees' misbehaviour did so much damage to the organisation that it would be untenable for each structure to continue in its current form.

The ruling party, Mantashe claimed, would strengthen itself by getting rid of unsavoury elements that displayed un-ANC tendencies and sowed division within their ranks.

Their new incarnations would serve the ANC better and bolster its efforts in furthering good governance and fostering internal party relations.

"I am a student of [Karl] Marx and rectification is not turmoil. When you correct your organisation it's not turmoil. You are strengthening your organisation," Mantashe told reporters.

"It's always important to never plaster over cracks. If you did that at home, your house would fall on you. You break and rebuild to strengthen your house."

Doing the right thing
Mantashe added that the ANC was merely doing the right thing.

"The ANC is not a sick organisation. We are healthy. We don't hide from our problems and bury our heads in the sand, we confront them," he said.

But whichever way Mantashe and the ANC as a whole chose to illustrate this, it still came across as a move to snuff out enemies of President Jacob Zuma within the ANC while remaining blind to other concerns within the party.

It also relayed a blatant directive to rid structures of the ANC of anyone who moved to unseat President Jacob Zuma as ANC leader at December's Mangaung elective conference.

Limpopo suffered under the rudderless leadership of Premier Cassel Mathale – both at party and provincial government level – but since Mangaung the youth of the ANC became model citizens.

Bid to oust Zuma
Once its bid to oust Zuma at the ANC's 53rd national elective conference failed, the youth league positioned itself as an ardent protector of both the president and the ruling party.

This was most evident when they accused First National Bank of treason over its recent You Can Help advertising campaign, claiming it was an attack on Zuma and the ANC.

Its acting president Ronald Lamola did everything but grovel to prove his organisation's worthiness, so the neutralisation of the youth league could be akin to a cowering individual being dragged from underneath their bed, pulled into the courtyard and shot in broad daylight.

The ANC deemed it fit to go after the youth league's national executive committee and the Limpopo provincial executive committee while several other structures within the organisation still left a great deal to be desired.

An example of this apparent hypocrisy is the current state of the ANC in the North West.

The province's deputy chairperson, China Dodovu, is currently a suspect in a murder investigation after Oubuti Chika, secretary of the Kenneth Kaunda region was shot dead in what most believed was an assassination ahead of Mangaung.

The arrest of Dodovu – who was charged with conspiracy to commit murder – was a sign of entrenched problems within the province and was interpreted as a strategic move by North West provincial chairperson Supra Mahumapelo to silence the outspoken Dodovu.

Moreover, Chika's death came less than a fortnight after the province's contentious general council in the North West, which initially held parallel nomination conferences.

Eventually, Zuma was announced as the province's preferred candidate for ANC president and it became easy to deduce that lack of action against these events resulted in the North West's backing of the incumbent at Mangaung.

ANC Women's League
The ANC Women's League – albeit to a lesser extent – is another example of dysfunction left to go about its business without fears of reprisal.

Besides toyi-toyiing and making bold statements in front of TV cameras outside the Pretoria Magistrate's Court during the Oscar Pistorius trial and issuing haphazard press statements decrying gender-based violence, what has this organisation done to leave it above reproach?

The league is at best moribund and was only spared the fate of Limpopo and the youth league due to its unwavering support for Zuma in the run-up to Mangaung.

Some observed the survival of Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga during the Limpopo textbook scandal to be solely down to her presidency of the women's league and Zuma's need for support at last December's elective conference.

The ANC's claim that moves on the youth league and its structures in Limpopo was an exercise to boost the organisation looks more like a feeble attempt to cover-up the party's heavy-handedness in dealing with those who did not support Zuma.

The fact that it came a little more than a week after Cosatu general secretary Zwelimzima Vavi was reported to be under attack for not openly supporting the president's second-term ambitions could serve as further proof that all those against Zuma during Mangaung are now in the firing line.

The candidates up for a spot on the guillotine next are most likely to be Minister of Human Settlements Tokyo Sexwale, Minister of Sport and Recreation Fikile Mbalula and North West Premier Thandi Modise, who all backed Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe as the next ANC president.

Mail & Guardian

COMMENTS BY SONNY

ZUMA'S WRATH.

Purging all the contenders post MANGAUNG......

IF YOU DON'T TOE THE ANC LINE YOU GET FLUSHED DOWN THE BOTTOMLESS PIT.

OR WAS THAT INTENDED TO BE THE 'LONG DROP!' 

THE PEOPLE SHALL GOVERN.

MANDY ROSSOUW LEFT US WITH A VISION.

FSB fires official linked to Sharemax

>
Topics: FSB, Rinate Goosen, Gert Goosen, Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Gerry Anderson, Sharemax



FSB fires official linked to Sharemax

March 17 2013 at 12:10pm
By Laura du Preez
The Financial Services Board (FSB) has decided to terminate the employment of one of its senior officials, Rinata Goosen, who previously worked for an entity that enabled unqualified financial advisers to sell high-risk investments in Sharemax property syndications.

According to a statement published in Business Report yesterday, the FSB says Goosen is an exemplary employee, but the negative perceptions created by her association with Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA) had led her and the FSB to agree that “the FSB’s operational requirements require the termination of her employment”.

Goosen, who has left the FSB already, was a manager in the FSB’s Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services enforcement department. She was previously a compliance officer for USSA, which was licensed to sell unlisted shares and appointed as its representatives advisers who were not licensed to do so but wanted to sell Sharemax.

Goosen’s involvement with USSA was highlighted in two recent rulings by the Ombud for Financial Services Providers, Noluntu Bam.

Last month, Bam ordered Sharemax, four of its directors, USSA and a broker to repay R580 000 to a widow who had invested in Sharemax’s Zambezi syndication, while in October last year she ordered a Pretoria broker to repay R800 000 to another widow who invested in Sharemax’s The Villa.

In her rulings, Bam said Sharemax was a “Ponzi scheme”, that USSA and Sharemax did not operate at arm’s length, and that USSA essentially “hired out its licence” in return for a fee.



-------------------------------------
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Author: Julius Cobbett|
17 March 2013 23:35
Sharemax-tarnished official agrees to leave FSB




Wife of Sharemax director leaves FSB after unflattering media coverage.

JOHANNESBURG – The Financial Services Board (FSB) and one of its officials, who has been linked to Sharemax, have agreed to part ways. The official in question is Rinate Goosen, a manager in the FSB’s Fais enforcement division. Rinate Goosen is the wife of former Sharemax director Gert Goosen. She is also the former compliance officer for controversial company FSP Network, which traded as Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA).

USSA was started by Gert Goosen as a company that provided its representatives with the necessary licence to sell Sharemax products. USSA has received severe criticism by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam, who has described USSA’s business as “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee.”

One of the most astonishing things to emerge from the USSA debacle is the sheer number of brokers who were operating under its licence. USSA had literally hundreds of broker representatives yet only one key individual, Gert Goosen, and one compliance manager, Rinate Goosen. The Fais Ombud wrote: “How it was possible to train and supervise this number [of representatives] is beyond explanation.”

Bam continued: “[USSA] abused the [Fais] Act to take advantage of a loophole which effectively allowed unlicensed FSPs to sell risky investments to an unsuspecting public.”

Bam found Gert Goosen and three other Sharemax directors liable for the loss suffered by investor Gerbrecht Siegrist.

The determination does not cast the Goosens in a particularly good light. It seems reasonable to ask whether Rinate Goosen is the appropriate person to hold a senior position at the FSB.

Despite the damning determination, the FSB has defended its employee. Deputy registrar for financial services providers Gerry Anderson has described Goosen as “well qualified and extremely competent”. See: FSB stands by Sharemax-tarnished official.

On Thursday March 14, the FSB and Rinate Goosen issued a joint media release. The release cannot be found in the media release section of the FSB’s website. However it was published in Die Burger on Friday.

In the release, Goosen and the FSB acknowledge that negative media publicity surrounding Goosen’s previous association with USSA has impaired the public’s perception of the regulator’s independence.

The FSB said when Goosen was re-employed, it was aware of Goosen’s previous job as a compliance officer of USSA, and did not find any shortcomings in her original written disclosure.

“The FSB recognizes that Mrs Goosen disagrees with the views and opinions of the Fais Ombud reflected in the Siegrist determination, and Mrs Goosen has stated that the respondents intend to appeal.”

The media release states: “The opinion of the Ombud, with which Mrs Goosen and the appellants disagree, is that Sharemax was a Ponzi scheme, that USSA rented out its licence, that USSA was an extension of Sharemax investments, that USSA engaged unqualified persons as its representatives, and that there were grounds (alleged fraud and reckless behavior) to pierce the corporate veil with respect to USSA and Sharemax Investments.

“The FSB believes that, based on her previous and current service at the FSB, Mrs Goosen is an exceptional employee and the FSB would recommend her to any prospective employer.

“However, because of the negative impression caused by her association with USSA, the FSB and Mrs Goosen have agreed that the FSB’s operational requirements necessitate the termination of her contract.”

The media release did not state whether Goosen received a golden handshake.

The table below summarises Goosen’s career over the past 22 years.

A 22-year summary of Rinate Goosen's carreer

1991 Rinate Goosen joins FSB

1999 Willie Botha starts Sharemax

Rinate Goosen leaves FSB to become compliance manager for Stanlib

2004 Gert Goosen's USSA is licenced with the Financial Services Board. Rinate Goosen is its compliance officer

USSA offers brokers a solution to Sharemax brokers who require a licence to sell property syndication schemes
The solution costs R150 a month
At its peak, USSA had more than 600 broker representatives yet only one key individual and one compliance officer
This raises questions about USSA's ability to supervise so many representatives

2005 Gert Goosen is appointed a director of Sharemax

2008 FSB issues notice 104 of 2008 which requires financial services providers to "directly supervise" representatives who sell shares and debentures

2009 Sharemax collapses

2011 Rinate Goosen rejoins FSB as a manager in the Fais enforcement department

26-Sep-12 Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam describes USSA's business as "“nothing short of the hiring out of a license for a small monthly fee”.

14-Oct-12 Moneyweb identifies FSB's links to USSA

13-Nov-12 Moneyweb reports on a scheme operated by Gert Goosen which pays investors 13% a year.

The FSB claims Gert Goosen's licenced financial services business, Preston Financial Solutions, is "dormant"

29-Jan-13 Bam finds four former Sharemax director's liable for a loss suffered by an investor, Gerbrecht Siegrist

Bam's determination is scathing about USSA's alleged abuse of the Fais Act.

6-Feb-13 The FSB's Gerry Anderson stands by Rinate Goosen, describing her as "well qualified and extremely competent"

12-Mar-13 The Ombud's office confirms that the Sharemax directors have applied for leave to appeal her determination

14-Mar-13 The FSB and Rinate Goosen issue a joint media release announcing the termination of Rinate Goosen's contract.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Topics: FSB, Rinate Goosen, Gert Goosen, Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Gerry Anderson, Sharemax

Analysis: Zille sees politicians, not farmers, as villains in Western Cape farm strikes

NO FEAR NO FAVOURS NO POLITICIANS..........

REBECCA DAVIS     south africa    18 MAR 2013 02:14 (SOUTH AFRICA)

Helen Zille’s latest “DA Today” newsletter, released on Sunday, is devoted to Zille’s analysis of the Western Cape farm strikes. And the provincial premier hasn’t pulled any punches, seemingly seeking to shift responsibility for the labour unrest from Western Cape farmers to unionists and the ruling party. Among other assertions, Zille claims that ANC councillors in the Hex River Valley worked as labour brokers while publicly railing against labour brokering, and that the ANC deliberately fostered xenophobic tensions among workers to drive its agenda. By REBECCA DAVIS.

Helen Zille clearly doesn’t think the media did a particularly good job in getting to the root of the farm strikes which took place in the Western Cape over December and January. Though she doesn’t say as much explicitly, it’s evident from the language of her latest newsletter, where she makes frequent reference to “the real story” and “what really happened”, in implied contrast to the versions of reality put about by politicians, picked up by the media, and swallowed by many members of the public.
“Heartless white farmers and labour brokers make ‘super profits’ by using ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics to drive down workers’ wages as their lives deteriorate”: this, in Zille’s view, became the “dominant (but entirely misleading) narrative” of the labour dispute. She fingers the ANC for “fuelling this narrative”, but notes too that “unsurprisingly, this narrative was parroted by many observers”. Zille believes this version of events was wrong, and she doesn’t trouble to mince her words. “The truth was the exact opposite”, Zille writes; “I have rarely come across a case study that so graphically illustrates the disjuncture between perception and reality.”
 Why is Zille writing about the farm strikes now, almost two months after matters appeared to die down? She explains that the Western Cape is in a “lull between storms”, with further protests on the horizon, and that clear-sighted analysis of the strikes is necessary now to meet the challenges of future unrest. But she also expresses a belief that this kind of analysis may only be possible once the dust has settled anyway. “At the height of a crisis, when perceptions are sharply polarised, people aren’t prepared to question their pre-conceptions,” she writes. “They only see the ‘evidence’ that supports their prejudices.”
Zille doesn’t make any exceptions here, so it’s fair to assume that she acknowledges that the DA may be just as prone to hotheaded conclusion-jumping as the rest. It’s worth noting, though, that Zille’s views on the farm protests don’t appear to have altered much since the height of the crisis. The newsletter just fleshes her ideas out more fully, but Zille has maintained from the start that the strikes were politically motivated and politically fuelled; that the likes of unionist Nosey Pieterse were charlatans; and that there were xenophobic tensions underlying the dispute. From the start, too, Zille has sought to reframe the debate away from farmers and wages towards the ANC’s desire to destabilise the Western Cape.
All these notions get an extended airing in her latest newsletter, but have been Zille’s refrain virtually from the first murmurings of the Western Cape labour dispute. So whereas many others may not have been seeing clearly at the height of the crisis, it seems, Zille has maintained enviable omniscience throughout. 
Zille’s newsletter only has criticism for one farm: Keurboschkloof, the export grape farm outside De Doorns where the workers’ protests began in September last year. This farm, Zille wrote, was owned by a white farmer called Pierre Smit, but following his death, the farm was “taken over by a Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) consortium that immediately CUT WORKERS’ WAGES from an average of R14,51 to R10,60 per hour.” The company which controls Keurboschkloof is SAFE, the SA Fruit Exporters. SAFE is not in itself a BEE consortium, as may be quickly established from a glance at its website.
But SAFE does have 50% control of a BEE agriculture project called Bono Holdings, which SAFE founder Anton de Vries described in a Decemberinterview as “one of the rural development department’s biggest partners”.
Zille explains near the newsletter’s end the source of her particular outrage about the Keurboschkloof situation: an article from Dutch business magazine Quote, which features an interview with de Vries. The article, published in October last year, presents de Vries as attributing his company’s success to its high-level South African contacts and ability to profit from South African land policies and partner with national government. (The piece ends with a particularly egregious quote from de Vries in which he explains that black women are at the top of the ladder in South Africa.)
Zille never explicitly states why she considers this article to be “the best of all” available information on the farm strikes, but the implication is clear: the DA was painted as the enemy of the workers, but actually it was a farm which allegedly holds tight links to the ANC, and which profited from ANC policies, that precipitated the whole mess by paying its workers low wages. It’s not a hugely explosive revelation, but it vaguely fits within Zille’s wider argument that the DA was unjustly demonised during the labour dispute, and the ANC unjustly valorised as the workers’ champion.
The newsletter gives the impression that Keurboschkloof is the only bad farm in the Western Cape, however. Zille comes out to bat for the other farms: “While the ANC was slamming ‘heartless white farmers’, many of them were actually paying their workers more than the minimum wage that had been set by the ANC minister of labour, Mildred Oliphant, in consultation with Cosatu,” Zille writes. The higher wages available in the Western Cape, Zille suggests, provides “one of the reasons why tens of thousands of desperately poor people leave their homes in far more fertile regions across Southern Africa to seek work on the rocky mountain slopes of De Doorns and other farms in the Western Cape.”
Her source in this regard is a paper published by the UCT Development Policy Research Unit’s Ben Stanwix in January this year, titled “Minimum wages and compliance in South African agriculture”. Stanwix’s research found that in the Western Cape and Gauteng, agricultural employers tended to pay close to or above the sectoral minimum wage even before it was introduced in 2003. Working from data from the Labour Force Survey 2000 – 2007, Stanwix shows that farm workers in the North West, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Free State have been substantially poorer off than their Western Cape counterparts
Stanwix’s research also suggested that there was very little enforced incentive for Western Cape farmers to comply with the minimum wage laws. In 2007, Stanwix pointed out, the “simple probability” of a farmer being visited by a labour inspector was just 11%, with relatively small financial penalties resulting even if a farmer was caught out. “For the average Western Cape farmer it is financially beneficial to risk paying sub-minimum wages, given the low probability of being caught and the fines that would result,” Stanwix concludes. And yet, despite this, Western Cape farmers have been better about wages than anywhere other than Gauteng, it would seem. The question clearly hovering over Zille’s newsletter is: Why haven’t other provinces experienced similar agricultural disruption?
Zille’s answer, at least partially, is that it is in the ANC’s interested to foment unrest in the Western Cape in the hope of winning the province from the DA. She stops short of directly laying out an accusation that the ANC masterminded the protests, but she maintains that “ANC politicians sought to spread the unrest across the province for their political advantage”. Two ANC councillors come in for extra targeting in her newsletter on the grounds of hypocrisy and double-dealing: Nelie Barends and Pat Marran, both of whom she accuses of acting as labour brokers to supply Hex River Valley farms with seasonal labour. (She also claims that Barends tried to supply Keurboschkloof with scab labour when its workers went on strike.)
Labour broking has, of course, been a political hot potato over the past two years. The ANC’s 2009 manifesto on labour broking included a resolution aiming to “address the problem of labour broking”. Cosatu took the fight to Mangaung last year but the ANC opted for regulation of the practice rather than an outright ban. During the Western Cape farm strikes workers expressed anger that they were being exploited by labour brokers; Zille claims that a consortium of labour brokers “sought to extract from farmers R10 per day for every worker the brokers placed in a job”, against the wishes of workers.
When the Daily Maverick contacted Nelie Barends on Sunday to ask whether he and Marran were labour brokers, as asserted by Zille, Barends was unequivocal: “She’s mad.” Barends described himself as a community leader who only became involved with strike action when the community asked him for guidance.  “No, no, I am not a labour broker,” Barends repeated several times. “[Zille] is jumping to conclusions. She is panicking now. She must come down and talk to the farmers, because they refuse to give workers the [new sectoral minimum wage of] R105. Now she is attacking us instead.”
Zille’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday on her evidence to support the claim that Barends and Marran are labour brokers.
Zille also used her newsletter to criticise refugee rights NGO Passop and its director Braam Hanekom, who she described as seeking “to unionise the workers for the Cosatu affiliate, the Food and Allied Workers Union (Fawu)”. She also specified that Hanekom’s uncle was an “ANC Cabinet member” (Science and Technology Minister Derek Hanekom), with the implication being that Passop was using its work with farmworkers to further the interests of the ANC and its allies.
Hanekom told the Daily Maverick that he was “disappointed that the premier has decided to bring my family into her statement when describing me, something I think is neither here or there.” He denied that Passop was politically aligned in any way, saying that the organisation has been outspoken in criticism of both ANC and DA policies affecting refugees. “We have even taken government to court to highlight injustice committed by ANC-led national departments of police and the Department of Home Affairs on several occasions,” Hanekom said.
He said that Passop supported the unionisation of workers because “unions provide an inclusive structure in which workers from various backgrounds and nationalities can debate and raise issues related to wages, working conditions and tensions between different groups.” Hanekom said he gave his support to Cosatu and Fawu because they were “established, democratic and tried and tested unions”.
Zille claims that xenophobic tensions in the Western Cape farmlands were stoked by the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to grant a special amnesty to Zimbabwean workers while leaving Basotho workers illegal. This is an idea supported by a 2009 paper by Wits researcher Jean Pierre Misago titled “Violence, Labour and the Displacement of Zimbabweans in De Doorns, Western Cape”, dealing with the causes of the violence towards Zimbabweans that erupted in De Doorns in 2008.
Hanekom has said previously, however, that De Doorns circa 2008 and De Doorns circa 2012 were two very different places, in terms of immigrant dynamics. Relations among foreign nationals in De Doorns prior to the labour disputes late last year were exceedingly peaceful, Hanekom maintains. He has been critical throughout of Zille’s claims of xenophobic tensions in the area, which he suggested could take on a self-fulfilling prophecy function. On Sunday, he again called her comments in this regard “dangerous and reckless”. Hanekom did agree with Zille, however, that the selective amnesty policy of the Department of Home Affairs “threatens the stability between workers of different nationalities”.
Zille’s analysis of the farm strikes undoubtedly contains some important truths, and will equally certainly be condemned by the ANC, and so it goes. Yet again, however, her analysis is noteworthy for the absence of any acknowledgement that farmers might be underpaying workers, or that workers might have legitimate gripes. Reading her newsletter, it was hard not to be reminded of an article by the Financial Mail’s Gillian Jones which appeared last December. “De Doorns workers appeared puzzled when questioned about a political motive to their protests,” Jones wrote. “’Food prices are getting higher and higher. We just can’t afford to eat any more, so we decided to strike,’ said Anna Mjoli.” DM
Read more:

• The real story behind the W Cape farm violence – Helen Zille, onPoliticsweb

Photo: Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille launches her party's manifesto for the forthcoming elections at the University of Johannesburg, Saturday, 14 February 2009. Picture: Jaco Marais/SAPA

 REBECCA DAVIS
DAILY MAVERICK


COMMENTS BY SONNY

Zille is painting a BLEAK PICTURE OF ANC INTERVENTION IN THE DE DOORNS STRIKES....!

BEE INVOLVEMENT IS OBVIOUS.

THE ANC MK WAR VETS DID MAKE A STATEMENT THAT THEY WOULD "MAKE THE WESTERN CAPE

UNGOVERNABLE!"

HELEN'S RESEARCH IS SPOT ON!

THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MORE 'MUD SLINGER'S THAN GUN SLINGER'S" BEHIND THE RIOTS IN 

THE WESTERN CAPE AT THE END OF 2012 - 2013.

....."DON'T BLAME THE FARMERS - BLAME THE ANC!".....