Family legend has it that many years ago when my father, in a letter to my grandfather, complained about the heat in Mussina (where we lived), stating that it was 103 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) “in the shade”, my grandfather wrote back: “If it is so hot in the shade, why the hell do you keep on going into the shade, then”.
I was reminded of this story when I saw the reaction of former Public Protector, Lawrence (“Fat-Cat”) Mushwana, to newspaper reports that he received a R7 million (no, not Zim dollars, South African Rand!) golden handshake on the completion of his seven year term as Public Protector.
“People just want to see my name rubbished in the newspapers,” he is quoted as saying. To which I am tempted to reply: “If you do not want to see your name rubbished in the newspaper, and you do not want to be hounded and ridiculed wherever you go, then why the hell did you take R7 million of tax payers money and why did you expose yourself as the greedy, overpaid, civil servant that you are?’
As Public Protector, Mushwana was entitled to a judges salary (about R1.5 million a year). He took the job knowing that it was for a non-renewable term of seven years. He was also recently appointed as the chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission so he does have a new job and a good salary to boot. He will not go hungry and will be able to live a very comfortable life. (His life wil be a bit more comfortable, say, than the lives of 40% of South African children who is reported to suffer from malnutrition – even if had not received the obscene pay-out.)
No matter what he might have been legally entitled to (there seems to be a dispute about the legality of the payment), taking R7 million as a “golden hand shake” (after first suspending chief executive of the Public Protector’s office, Themba Mthethwa, for questioning the payout) is deeply and shockingly immoral and unethical. It shows a callous disregard for taxpayers and for the people of this country he is supposed to serve. It confirms that he is a callous human being, not much better than those guys who made the Reitz video, because like them, he also does not care about the suffering of fellow South Africans (a majority of whom are the very poor South Africans he might have pretended to care about).
How many houses could the state have built with that money? How many lives could have been saved by providing dying people with access to anti-retroviral drugs? How many hungry children could have been fed with that money? Where is Mushwana’s ubuntu? Has he no shame or integrity? If I were a friend or family member of Mushwana I would have been deeply ashamed to be associated with him.
I suppose Mushwana thinks he is entitled to sip Jonny Walker (of some colour or the other), drive around in a flashy car and roll around in the money that could have been used to provide a better life for others less well-connected than himself. After all, it is so last year to care about others who do not know the people you know and are not as important as you think you yourself are?
The problem is that he will not be shunned by all his colleagues and friends. Some will even defend his “right” to the R7 million and might claim that some regulation somehwere entitles him to the pay-out. They will hide behind rules and laws – just like the apartheid officials hid behind rules and laws – to justify the indefensible and the immoral actions of a state official. And Mr Mushwana is not the only person who believes that he has a right to feed on state resources that could have been used for poverty alleviation.
Those who fail to shun Mushwana (and all the other Mushwana’s of our world), who do not criticise his greed, who try to justify it by saying that some apartheid killers also live well, THEY – as much as him – should sleep uneasy at night if they had any sense of shame. Until South Africans turn their back on the heartless immorality of people like Mushwana, the state will not become a caring one embued with the spirit of Batho Pele.
Is it too much to hope that maybe, just maybe, late at night, when those who defend Mushwana and his ilk, those who attend lavish dinners at his house and greet him in the street, to hope that those, when they go to bed and they listen carefully, will be haunted by the screams of hungry and dying children from whom Mushwana, in effect, had stolen. How can we re-establish a society in which the dignity of all is respected, when people like Mushwana act no better than the heartless racists who lorded over us during the apartheid era? Is it not time for decent people to speak out and to shun the Muswhana’s of the world?
Surely that – if anything – is what ubuntu must mean for us?
@ Pierre.
“How many houses could the state have built with that money? How many lives could have been saved by providing dying people with access to anti-retroviral drugs? How many hungry children could have been fed with that money? Where is Mushwana’s ubuntu? Has he no shame or integrity?”
That’s all irrelevant.
He was either entitled to that money or he was not.
It seems not.
It also seems that the CE was suspended so that the payment could be made.
This is a matter for Advocate Thulisile Madonsela to investigate.
The Madam will probably be at her soon.
Its not irrelevant Maggs. It more an issue of ethics and morals. Possible illegalities are neither here nor there if you’ve accessed the inner cabal. Knowing as I do how many well intended individuals sincerely struggle to serve the desperate and needy, scrambling for every rand possible, even change in donation cans, the waste and corruption is enough to drive us to despair.
And yes Prof: it is to much to hope. The greed and indifference is now ingrained in political cement and seeminglly unmoveable. The ruling class couldn’t care less. Let the masses eat kak… or is that cake? I get confused with translations.
Maggs, I disagree with you completely. If Mushwana was entitled to that obscene amount of money there is something wrong with the system. And if he was ENTITLED to it it doesn’t mean he had to ACCEPT it. That is part of what Pierre is saying: forget the legalities; look at the socio-economics and the human side of things.
We are seeing this behaviour over and over again now: Manuel’s car, Nzimande’s car, stays in expensive hotels, etc. And all this with tax-payers’ money. Our politicians and civil servants are grabbing what they can and hiding behind such words as ‘entitlement’. Such behaviour is bad enough in Britain – where the Daily Telegraph recently exposed how most MPs have been abusing the system of allowances by charging anything from a box of matches to a second home to the taxpayer – but it is unforgivable in our society.
Sarah Palin says:
October 30, 2009 at 16:24 pm
“If Mushwana was entitled to that obscene amount of money there is something wrong with the system.”
Indeed – It’s the first time I come across such an outrage that some one is entitled to the cumulative salary as a termination payment.
There is something wrong with the system.
“And if he was ENTITLED to it it doesn’t mean he had to ACCEPT it”.
Apart from Mandela, there are no examples that I can think of of people who did not accept entitlements – anyway that’s irrelevant.
Whoever arranged the contract needs to be engaged.
sirjay jonson says:
October 30, 2009 at 16:22 pm
“It more an issue of ethics and morals”.
That’s a personal and subjective thing.
Either his contract was proper or it was not.
If it was proper good luck to him.
If it was not then it must be remedied.
Maggs: Ethics and morals are an agreed upon social construct, not simply a personal, religious or subjective matter. As Sarah has stated: he didn’t have to accept it. Do you recall the incident many months ago when a minister, I think, was given a car and he asked Zuma if he could keep it? I believe it was returned eventually or utilized in some other way. Wasn’t that an awareness of ethics as a social construct?
It’s not just criminal to murder, commit crime, cheat the state; it’s also accepted as immoral within enlightened society. Law is only one element within a social construct.
There are the two issues – was he legally entitled to the amount paid, and SHOULD he be legally entitled to it (if he was).
If entitled, then he should receive the money, and the rules should henceforth be changed. It is inconceivable that a gratuity after seven years of “service” should be more than two-thirds of his total remuneration during that time.
Why has nobody said that we should change the rules regarding Ministers’ cars? Not even Mr Manuel suggested that things should change from nowonwards (of course, with the cars, the amount spent WAS discretionary, and should have been reduced).
What I would like to know is who made the decision regarding the payment in the first place, who executed the payment (and on what authority). It would also be good to see the written records pertaining to any such decisions.
sirjay jonson says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:16 pm
Read Mike Atkins says:October 30, 2009 at 17:28 pm – well said Mike
The loosely defined “ethics and morals” is not where I would venture to go.
Everybody puts their own spin on that – whose ethical and moral compass should we accept?
Mike Atkins says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:28 pm
“Why has nobody said that we should change the rules regarding Ministers’ cars?”
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-06-zuma-ministers-cars-no-longer-an-issue
It seems that some Ministers thumbed their noses at the President!
Maggs Naidu says:
October 30, 2009 at 16:55 pm
“Apart from Mandela, there are no examples that I can think of of people who did not accept entitlements – anyway that’s irrelevant.”
The guy who gave back the car, if my memory serves me right, did not get it from the taxpayers, it was a private gift from an association. What makes the situation perhaps more disgraceful, is that there was another polititian who gave something back: In 1986 die Groot Krokodil reduced his own salary with 8.3%.
Chris says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:46 pm
“The guy who gave back the car, if my memory serves me right, did not get it from the taxpayers, it was a private gift from an association”.
Eish.
It’s really outrageous that people of that stature have to rely on “guidance” from our President.
“They gave the gift after I left office” is about the most disingenuous excuse yet.
BTW Chris, Mandela refused to have his salary at the high level that was proposed at the time – that’s the entitlement I referred to.
[...] No matter what he might have been legally entitled to (there seems to be a dispute about the legality of the payment), taking R7 million as a “golden hand shake” (after first suspending chief executive of the Public Protector’s office, Themba Mthethwa, for questioning the payout) is deeply and shockingly immoral and unethical. It shows a callous disregard for taxpayers and for the people of this country he is supposed to serve. It confirms that he is a callous human being, not much better than those guys who made the Reitz video, because like them, he also does not care about the suffering of fellow South Africans (a majority of whom are the very poor South Africans he might have pretended to care about). via constitutionallyspeaking.co.za [...]
Pierre,
I outrightly disagree with your view that a payment of R7m (whether as a golden handshake or not) is immoral and unethical. Your hypethical questions as to how many houses could have been built (etc.) are completely irrelevant to the fact that if the state makes provision for anyone to receive such a of money, then he/she is entitled to receive such sum. The fact that someone receives such sum/s under circumstances of corruption is of course an entirely different question – and I don’t think this is your only argument in this respect. I think you should stop playing the “moral and ethics apostle” here. Perhaps someone should start questioning the handsome salaries professors earn. Of course, they may PERHAPS not earn millions of rands. However, their earnings are handsome enough for many a professor to live more than comfortably from it when they retire. Thus, where is the difference between a well-earning professor (ca. R560 000, taken from UCT remuneration policy) and a well-earning minister, in addition to other financial incentives/perks professors may also be receiving from other sources (e.g. boards of executors, advisory committees, etc)? They all add up. In the end, I’d say that what a prolific professor earns may not be that far apart from the very person you’re accusing. And so the question arises: is it moral and ethical also for professors to earn so much money, much of which also comes from taxpayers’ money?
A high court judge earns R1,232,766, still waiting for their 2009 increase to be announced. This amount times 7, plus a R7,000,000 handshake after 7 years means the public protector can earn R15,629,362 in 7 years.
If what a prolific professor earns are not far apart from that then I really, really want to become a professor too!
It’s all relative, Chris.
Viewed from ground level in Delft or Wallacedene, there’s really no major difference between the Prof’s salary and Mushwana’s.
The difference is that Mushwana is a public servant.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:51 pm
I just remebered, Thabo Mbeki did the same – that is refusing an increase in his salary. I understand when he resigned he was still receiving salary he got when he became president in 1999.
Chris says:
October 30, 2009 at 20:28 pm
There’s not much merit in Andy’s propositions (which is nonsense anyway).
This is not even about the belt tightening that is needed at this time (which many in government seem to ignore), nor is it about corruption.
Central to this is what is happening to the public purse – there seems to be horrific level of raiding “within the rules”.
It’s outrageous that a civil servant can get incentives of the same order as cumulative salary.
Either this is illegal or the rules are so lax that interpretation can be used in any manner that the incumbents desire – either way therein lies the outrage.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 31, 2009 at 8:46 am
Maggs, you are absolutely correct in your diagnosis of the issue. The greed extends to public figures who think, talk and behave in a manner that does not reflect a sincere desire to serve the electorate of the country, but rather place self-interest and visible aggrandisement before service delivery. Any Government is only as effective as its foot-soldiers on the ground, i.e. the competence and effectiveness of its civil servants, and this competence is not measured by the visible signs of status and power, but by the effectiveness of the output, i.e. how well does that department function.
It is greedy and shameful indeed. Why should anyone get a golden handshake from taxpayers money that is supposed to be used for the common good!
@Andy, professors and other academics earn relatively very little for the level of education they have compared to politicians and directors in the public service!
While UCT is among the best paying higher education institutions, in other universities, (by the way, I am also talking about South Africa universities here as the country stretches beyond the kolonie!) – it is a few hundred thousand rand less! Salaries for academics are very low, whereas the remuneration of Vice-Chancellors has increased much faster – which has led to a situation where the VC is no longer first among equals, but some high paying CEO compared to the academic staff who earn less than the administrative staff. At least, academics earn more than the service workers! A lecturer starts at around R150,000.-, hardly to write home about, isn’t!
Moreover, there is no professor or academic in SA who gets a golden – R7,000,000.- – handshake or any handshake (not even bronze) after seven years work or even forty-seventy years of work!
high paying = highly paid
@Sarah Palin, while it’s relative, I don’t mind people earning high salaries per se if they deserve it, because of their contribution to industry, knowledge production, innovation, etc. What I do object against are public servants earning money they do not deserve as there is no correlation between what they contribute to the greater good of society and their remuneration; it somehow has become an automatic entitlement whatever lousy contribution they made. It is almost inverted ….the lousier, the higher…
Apologies for being off topic, but I’m just suprised at how our dear media has largely been quite about the reported eff up by the City of Cape Town / WC with regard to “BRT” system. If the report I saw is to be believed, it appears that someone really effed up, to the tune of R2bn plus.
Or is it because this is all too close to the administration led and controlled by the “Mayor of the Year”.
Similarly suprising is how our media has generally not made a lot of noise about the reported disrespect shown to Dr Nelson Mandela and, more importantly, our National Anthem by some fool.
Both incidents were news headlines when I listened.
Charlotte A,
I wouldn’t precisely call R560 000,00 + other financial incentives “relatively little” either. You’d have to bear in mind that the buck doesn’t stop at the sum of R560 000,00; professors earn/obtain money from other sources/activities too (e.g. proceeds from books, from their activities on boards of directors, from their activities on various commissions, etc.) In relation to ordinary people (with or without qualifications) – this is an abnormally high sum (to coin the phrase, it may appear to some as “immorally high and ethically questionable”). In relation to other highly qualified people, this may still be seen as “appropriate”. So everything is relative. As mentioned, when all is added up, then I doubt very much whether the total income p.a. of a prolific professor is that far from any “morally and ethically questionable sum of money” earned by politicians, company directors and the like respectively from a PP with R1.5m p.a. (give and take a few hundred rands difference up or down).
Just a final thought: if like you say, UCT is among the best paying institutions around, then I wonder whether this may have been a motivating factor as to why Pierre switched from UWC to UCT (I doubt whether though and I wouldn’t blame or accuse him for having done so!) and I also wonder whether there was also talk of a golden handshake – but this is merely a thought in the back of my mind. Bear in mind that when for example professors retire, they also get some kind of handshake, the only difference is that nobody ever gets to hear about these and how high these may be, thus nobody is able to talk and make a big fuss of it as with the present case of Pierre versus Mushwana.
If I understand correctly, our Constitution and Bill of Rights effectively determines that the new South Africa is to be built and grown by the people, all the people. I believe these legal documents stipulate that members of parliament are to serve their citizens and country’s guests, not primarily themselves, and that it is we the people through all the various interest groups, political affiliations, invested shareholders who together determine what policy our government decides on. Was that not the plan?
So where did this all go wrong, and how can the rights of the people be regained as the intended authority? Without question, the attack on the judiciary and the rule of law has undermined this right of the people to determine the social direction of themselves and their country. Its not just enlightened parties or minorities who are abused, it’s the poor, it’s South Africa and the future of the Continent. How do we regain our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, our trust in law and justice, opportunity, optimism?
The purest Democracy is that which respects and honours all stakeholders, the poor, the capitalist, the unions, the handicapped, the ill and the vulnerable.
Democracy is a balancing act.
Andy says:
October 31, 2009 at 17:31 pm
You seem to be trying to make some point.
Help us out a bit – what is it?
“Among the top 10 earners, six are from the transport parastatal. It paid no less than 12 of its executives more than R4.8-million each. All 12 appear in the top 20 earners and collectively raked in over R80-million in one year.
“This included massive performance bonuses of, in most cases, more than their basic salary.
“The highest-paid was former Transnet CEO Maria Ramos, now the chief executive of Absa, who took home R11.2-million, including a R4.85-million salary and a massive R5.79-million performance bonus. ”
“The research also shows that while SA’s 20 top-earning civil servants should be earning between R3.3-million and R4.8-million, had they just earned their salaries. But they did, in fact, earn between R4.6-million and R11.2-million, once all of their bonuses and additional benefits were added”.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article174258.ece
Eish!
To put things into perspective: R60k can produce a Victim Support Trauma Room with scheduled counsellors, 9K can produce a 100 sq meter mini sports park for young children, getting them off the street. R150k can build and maintain for the first year a squatter camp crèche combining pre-school and nourishing meals for upwards of a 100 children. With all the volunteer and NGO organizations, these are the prices.
The question is: will this all just continue? Do we the people have any real say?
Will it brashfully escalate? Is this not the raping of the state and the people?
Scamming the poor.
These poor executive and government folk, gosh, they can’t even afford their own car, or for that matter meals, travel, entertainment and drinks.
Amusing as it is to have my salary debated here, it seems to miss the point. Of course, relatively to most South Africans (if not to most politicians in South Africa) I am well paid. I thank my lucky stars for that as it allows me to buy many books and food (sometimes even from Woolies) and medicine and even the odd holiday. Whether it is moral for someone to receive a salary that allows him or her to afford such things when others do not have access to enough food to eat somewhere else in the country or the world, is an important question, but not the one I chose to touch on.
My post did not comment on Muswhana’s salary (about R1.5 million a year), but the fact that he was paid a discretionary amount of R7 million after completion of his contract, an amount of almost 80% of his salary for the contract. Professors never get a golden handshake of any kind, but if they did and it even remotely approached this amount I would think it immoral and disgraceful to accept it. The larger point is about the attitude of public officials to public money and the culture of greed that makes people feel this is perfectly acceptable to receive such a discretionary amount (over and above the handsome salary!) when the money could have been used for other much more worthy things.
What if I were offered a R7 million golden handshake today (or even golden gatskop for that matter)? Immoral or not, I would probably lack the moral fibre to say no!
Copied from M&G….
“The chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), also a Chapter 9 institution, earns a little less than a government deputy director general — an annual salary of R889 000.”
and
“Mushwana justified his generous payout by saying that his new job at the SAHRC, where he will report for duty on Monday, does not have any benefits.
“There is no pension fund, unless they improve something. [That] gratuity is not even transferable,” he said.
But the SAHRC said Mushwana would have the same pension fund provisions as the previous chairperson, Jody Kollapen, and his pension contributions would be deducted from his salary package. Kollapen received a payment of about R500 000, which consisted largely of his pension fund contributions, when he left the commission.
The M&G has learned through sources at the Human Rights Commission that the institution is awaiting a Cabinet response to Mushwana’s request that his SAHRC salary match what he earned as public protector.”
Pierre, I am sure most of us would quickly engineer some rationalisation to accept a fat bonus when we leave service. It is just that the scale of the bonus here is obscene, especially considering how little meaningful public protecting he actually did. Most blame must go to the system that allowed this whole debacle in the first place – this bonus is just a symptom of the much larger problem of cadre deployment and enrichment.
Pierre De Vos,
You can’t start a discussion on golden handshakes (inter alia of Mushwana), you can’t attack him for how immoral and unethical it is to have accepted such a “handshake” and then willfully ignore related issues. Indeed the issue of salaries or remuneration of any kind forms part of this discussion – as is the question of your salary or anyone who earns “immorally and unethically” well. I find it amusing to see how people tend to pick out the raisins when discussing/debating – something I call selective debating. I don’t mind (in fact, I don’t care) if you bought of stack of books from your well-deserved and well-earned money. The point is: let’s not be self-righteous about the issue (which I think you are)! You’re self-righteous in that it is unreasonable to expect any sane person to say “no” to a severance package or a golden handshake of this amount, regardless of whether this person may have done something to deserve it or not. If you took the example of Mothlana: he was in office but did not achieve much (at least in terms of my opinion). I also do not know whether he’s received a severance package or not (so I cannot make a form any opinion on this). However, let’s assume he had received a severance package or a golden handshake of R1.7m, then it certainly would not have been on the basis of his performance and work done/acheived for the nation – but it would merely be because of the office he had occupied. Can anyone expect him to say “no” and can anyone seriously maintain that this would be immoral and unethical? I think not.