RE: Chinese Association of South Africa

The Editor

1.         There has been much comment and with respect distortion of the facts and legal issues surrounding the application made by the Chinese Association of South Africa against this Ministry and other Ministries in the High Court of Pretoria.

2.         The true facts are as follows

2.1        The Chinese Association of South Africa sought an order in the main declaring South African Chinese people as falling within the ambit of the definition of “black people” in section 1 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 as well as section 1 of the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003;

2.2        As applicants the Chinese Association also sought other alternative relief in the event of the main relief not succeeding, in essence that a finding contrary to what is set out in 2.1 would on the applicants’ version result in the aforementioned legislation being unconstitutional to the extent that Chinese people are excluded from the definition of “black people”.

3.         This Ministry carefully considered the matter and took the correct view in our opinion namely that Chinese people who were the victims of apartheid and in particular apartheid legislation at the material time were contemplated to fall within the definition of “black people” in the legislation referred to hereinabove.  The necessarily resulted in the application not being opposed.  The definition of black in the Employment Equity Act includes Coloureds.  Chinese people were classified as Coloureds under apartheid.

4.         In my respectful view, the decision taken by my Ministry and by the other Ministries party to the application is the correct decision.  Accordingly the application was not opposed which saved cost.  Had the application been opposed this would have resulted in increased cost unnecessarily incurred because the respective Ministries took a decision not to oppose the application.  Accordingly costs on an unopposed scale was tendered which results in cost actually being saved because costs on an opposed application is far higher than costs of an unopposed application.  Additionally it was not necessary to employ lawyers to go to Court on behalf of this Ministry.

5.         There is no requirement and no need to change the legislation because Chinese people who were victims of apartheid at the material time fall with in the definition of “black people” and therefore the legislation remains in tact and of application.

6.         I hope this clarifies the matter and I say in all humility that the misinformation has simply aggravated a sense o disposition