Reply:

a) All hospitals in the country are mandated to remain open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

b) Not applicable.

END.

Reply:

a) Vacant nurses (i) hospital (aa) position and (bb) institution.

b) Information not available

c) Positions to be filled as soon as funds are available.

Please refer to the attached Annexure 1.

END.

Reply:

a) Bela Bela town has only two clinics namely: Warmbath Town Clinic and Bela Bela Clinic. Spa Park community never had a clinic that rendered services under Department of Health.

b) The SPA park facility is part of a community hall and has not functioned as a clinic. It was utilized by a NGO called HIV AIDS Prevention Group (HAPG) as an office and storage.

c) No medicine is stored in the SPA park facility

d) The keys are kept by the NGO called HAPG

e) The SPA Park community is serviced by Warmbath Town Clinic

f) The Operational Manager is responsible to monitor the services in the mobile clinic .

g) The qualifications for the staff working at the mobile clinic is the following:

Professional Nurse with Midwifery

Enrolled Nursing Assistant

Mobile Clinic Driver

h) The schedule for mobile services is available however it does not include Spa Park community which receives services from Warmbaths Town Clinic.

END.

Reply:

Please find here: Response

Reply:

(a) The system of commuted overtime was introduced for those clinical services where the after hour service is required on a regular and continuous basis. In the case of Dentists, the Commuted Overtime policy does include Maxillo Facial Surgery which is required on a regular and continuous basis.

Other Oral Health services are not routinely required on a regular and continuous basis.

Where oral health services are required after normal working hours, the normal overtime remuneration dispensation applies.

(b) The Commuted Overtime policy is an operational policy and not legislation.

(c) There is no impact on patient services

Reply:

Yes, the Remuneration Committee (REMCO) of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) has the authority to recruit executive managers in consultation with Council. So the power to employ rests with Council. REMCO is a sub-committee of Council. The Council can however delegate such powers to the Registrar, in terms of Section 12(1) of the Health Professions Act, 1974 (Act No. 56 of 1974).

END.

Reply:

Please find here: Response

Reply:

(a) (i) Ms Freda Xaluva and Mr Charles Mziwakhe;

(ii) Mr Tshepiso Victor Mahlake, the Procurement Officer;

(b) As indicated in the reply to Question 1294, this was not tender or specific contract, it was sourced as three quotes in line with policy. When companies are in the supplier database, vetting would have been done and would not need to be repeated for each order.

END.

Reply:

1. (a)(b)(i) and (ii) - Your attention is directed to the table attached of cleaners appointed on the PERSAL system.

2. (c) Information regarding private cleaners employed have been requested from Provincial Departments

Please find here: Cleaners per Hospital as at May 2018 (PERSAL)

Reply:

1. The table below indicate (a) the total number of specialist doctors who are at (i) hospital (b) the speciality of each specialist is not known;

2. The table below also include the number of specialists who are needed at each hospital for now, according to Vulindlela system. We do not think there can ever be a maximum capacity when it comes to staffing of hospitals with doctors. There can be a minimum but not a maximum.

END.

Reply:

1. (a)(b)(i) and (ii) - Your attention is directed to the table attached of cleaners appointed on the PERSAL system.

2. (c) Information regarding private cleaners employed have been requested from Provincial Departments

Please find here: Cleaners per Clinic as at May 2018 (PERSAL)

Reply:

(1 )-(2) It is not a Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) requirement in terms of current Human Resource (HR) prescripts. However we will consider these as an additional step in the HR recruitment and appointment process.

END

Parliamentary Question

Reply:

Find here: Response

Reply:

No, no one was criminally investigated and prosecuted.

END.

Reply:

According to the Mpumalanga Department of Health, the Mpumalanga Department of Health did not enter into contract with Gupta-related Mediosa-like contracts.

According to the KwaZulu Natal Department of Health, the matter is still under investigation in that Department and information will be tabled once the investigation has been finalised.

END.

Reply:

The following tables reflect the details in this regard:

Table 1 : See the link http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW1025_Table1.pdf

 

Table 2: See the link http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW1025_Table2.pdf

 

Table 3: See the link http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW1025_Table3.pdf

 

Table 4: See the link http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW1025_Table4.pdf

END.

Reply:

a) Based on assumptions made in the IRP, the combined effect of including coal and Inga as policy adjustment is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour on projected tariff of 119 cents per kilowatt hour.

b) The decision taken to deviate from the least cost scenario by including the Inga hydropower into the IRP was on the basis that there is a treaty signed between the government of South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo for South Africa to off take 2500MW from the project.

c) The IRP assumes the project to come online by year 2030.

d) At this stage of project development we are not aware of South African companies involved in the development of the project.

Reply:

(a), (b) and (c) Please refer to Annexure A accompanying this reply for details pertaining to the question posed by the Honourable Member.

Reply:

1. (a) (i) The Department of Public Works is currently dealing with 16 labour disputes.

(a) (ii) See second table below in respect of information pertaining to the entities.

(b) The cause of each dispute	(c) The nature of each dispute	(d) (i) Date each dispute was reported	(d) (ii) date of resolution of dispute
Application and interpretation of a collective agreement	No translation of OSD to Professional Quantity Surveyor	2018-03-05	2018-04-03
Unfair Labour Practice with respect to Promotion	No shortlisting done	2017-11-30	Arbitration in progress
Unfair Labour practice with respect to benefits	No upgrading to another level	2018-02-19	2018-05-31
Unilateral change to terms and condition of employment	Non-agreed transfer to another regional office	2018-04-12	2018-08-15
Unfair labour practice with respect to Promotion	No shortlisting done	2018-02-21	Arbitration in progress
Unfair labour practice with respect to Promotion	No shortlisting done	2018-04-16	2018-08-06
Misconduct	Unfair dismissal	2018-04-09	Arbitration in progress
Misconduct	Unfair suspension	2018-03-16	Arbitration in progress
Unfair Labour practice with respect to Promotion	No shortlisting done	2018-05-24	2018-07-20
Payment of OSD grade progression	Application and interpretation of a collective agreement	2018-06-19	Arbitration in progress
Unfair labour practice with respect to Promotion	No shortlisting done	2017-12-14	2018-04-13
Unfair labour practice with respect to Promotion	No Implementation of retention conditions	2018-04-24	Awaiting arbitration award
Unfair Labour practice with respect to Promotion	Non-appointment	2018-06-08	Arbitration in progress
Unfair labour practice with respect to Promotion	Non-appointment	2017-07-16	Arbitration in progress
Application and interpretation of a collective agreement	Declined Incapacity leave	2018-08-24	2018-09-17
Application and interpretation of a collective agreement	Non- payment of overtime exceeded 30% threshold	2018-08-24	2018-09-17

(2) (a)(i) A total number of 30 employees were dismissed in the last five years:

• 13 employees in 2014;
• 6 in 2015;
• 7 in 2016;
• 4 in 2017.

• 11 employees were dismissed for absenteeism;
• 5 for theft;
• 5 for the appointment of service providers without following due procurement processes;
• 4 for fraud and misrepresentations;
• 3 for corruption/bribery;
• 1 for abuse of a State vehicle;
• 1 for unlawful benefitting from the service provider.

(b)(i) None of the employees dismissed received a severance packages.

(ii) Falls away.

(1) (a) (ii) Information in respect of the entities:

Name of Entity	No. of labour disputes	b) Cause of each dispute	c) Nature of Dispute	d)i) Date each dispute was reported	d)ii) Date each dispute was resolved
Agrément South Africa
ASA	Nil	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	0
Council for the Built Environment
CBE	2	Employees release after expiry of their contracts	Expiry of Contracts	CCMA ruling received on 8 June 2016	Matter unresolved pending Labour Court date.  Date of lodgement 22 June 2016.
	1	Unfair dismissal	The former CEO lodged a claim first to CCMA and after to the labour court about her disputing the Council resolution to dismiss her after a long disciplinary process.	CCMA ruling received on 19 October 2016.   Arbitration notice received on 11 April 2017.	Case was reported to the labour court by the former CEO on 4 September 2017. Matter unresolved pending Labour Court date.
Total	3
Construction Independent Development Board
CIDB	1	Employee failed to record leave days causing fruitless and wasteful expenditure.	Dishonesty	17/05/18	16/08/2018 Employee resigned and subsequently withdrew case.
	1	Cidb instituted civil proceeding to recover the money from ex- employees provident fund pay-out.	Civil Proceedings	31/07/18	In progress
	1	Employer recovered paid bursary funds upon employee resignation, as per the terms and conditions of the study contract and policy.	Employee instituted a dispute unfair labour practice, upon employer recovering paid bursary fund.	28/ 06/18	In progress, arbitration set-down for 10 October 2018.
	1	Employee failed to record leave taken. It was later discovered that they were submitting fraudulent medical certificate.	Dishonesty	29/08/18	Employee resigned with immediate effect on the day of disciplinary hearing (29 August 2018).
	1	Cidb instituted civil proceeding to recover the money from ex- employee’s provident fund pay-out.	Civil proceeding	17/09/2018	In progress
	1	Dispute over job grading disparities between help- desk and admin clerk positions.	NEHAWU instituted a dispute unfair labour practice	27/07/18	Set-down 25/09/18
Total	6
Independent Development Trust
Name of Entity	No. of labour disputes	b) Cause of each dispute	c) Nature of Dispute	d)i) Date each dispute was reported	d)ii) Date each dispute was resolved
IDT	1	Salary Negotiation	Salary negotiation deadlock	29 July 2018	06 September 2018
Total	1

Reply:

The total cost of a Government subsidised houses is made up of three major cost elements comprising of the purchase of the site (raw land), the costs relating to the township establishment process and installation of municipal engineering services, as well as the construction cost of the top structure.

The cost of acquiring raw land is influenced by factors such as its location and market value and this even varies from one human settlements project to the next situated within the same municipal area. The purchasing of raw land is funded from a Provinces' Operational Budget while in some scenarios the raw land is already in the ownership of the Province. As a result, no standard purchase price can be used for reporting purposes.

The cost of the township establishment process and the installation of municipal engineering services are influenced by whether A Grade or B Grade services are being installed. My Department has calculated these costs and announced it to be of an indicative nature. The indicative cost of A Grade services is set at R45 985,00 while that of B grade services is set at R36 258,00.

Besides, for the level of the municipal engineering services the installation costs may escalate due to the introduction of precautionary measures that are required to adequately address extraordinary circumstances such as dolomite, sinkholes, retention walls and rocky areas.

These measures are required to ensure that houses can withstand the conditions of the area. Resulting from these precautions there will also be an increase in the fees for professional services. For contract and budgeting purposes all variations in cost are calculated by using an electronic Variation Calculator.

Ultimately it is the prerogative of the Provincial Member of the Executive Council (MEC) responsible for Human Settlements to approve of the final costs of the installation of the municipal engineering services. The cost is to be funded from the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG).

For the 2018-19 financial year the subsidy amount available for the construction of a standard top structure is set at R116 867,00. The actual cost of the construction of the top structure may increase due to a number of factors. The Ministerial Minimum National Norms and Standards for the construction of Stand Alone Residential Dwellings financed through National Housing Programmes provides that each house comprising of 40m² gross floor area, must as a minimum, be designed on the basis of:

• Two bedrooms;
• A separate bathroom with a toilet, a shower and hand basin;
• A combined living area and kitchen with wash basin;
• A standard basic electrical installation comprising a pre-paid meter with distribution box and lights and plugs in all living areas of the house;

Subsidised houses to be provided to disabled persons who are dependent on wheel chair use comprises of 45m² gross floor area. The increased size provides for the specific needs in respect of the layout of the house as a bigger bathroom, and wider doors are a pre-requirement to ensure adequate movability

In addition my Department has entered into a Joint Position with the Department of Military Veterans to provide subsidised houses comprising a maximum 50m² of gross floor area to qualifying military veterans. The cost resulting from the additional 10m2 increased gross floor area and other additional aspects such as the ceramic floors tiles throughout the house, kitchen cupboards with a electric twin hop, carport with paving and perimeter fence for each property are financed by the Department of Military Veterans

With regard to the special housing needs of certain categories of disabled beneficiaries, an increase in the subsidy amount is needed to ensure that housing units delivered through the National Housing Scheme are adjusted to accommodate the special housing needs of a disabled beneficiary (or a member of the beneficiary household) to enable them to live independently, certain additions/alterations are necessary.

These disabled beneficiaries fall into the following categories and assistance is provided in line with their specific needs and additions or alterations to the housing product are effected:

• Needs walking aids;
• Partial/Full-time usage of wheel chair;
• Partially/profoundly deaf;
• Partially/totally blind; and/or
• Partially/total movement loss/paralysis in the upper body limbs.

For comparative purposes the costs involved in the provision of subsidised houses during the 2018-19 financial year are provided below. The table provides for the installation of A Grade municipal engineering services (which is R9 727,00 more expensive than B Grade services but is most often installed) and shows the financial impact of providing different sizes of houses:

	Standard 40m2 house	Disabled 45m2 house	Military Veterans 50m2 house
Land price or value if in ownership	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
A Grade municipal engineering services (indicative)	R45 985,00	R45 985,00	R45 985,00
Top structure	R116 867,00	R172 929,00	R199 014,00
Total cost	R162 852,00	R218 914,00	R244 999,00

Once again the following table provides for the installation of A Grade municipal engineering services and the different house sizes but the financial impact resulting from geo-technical circumstances and a disability that does not result in an increase of the house size:

	Standard 40m2 house	Disabled 45m2 house	Military Veterans 50m2 house
Land price or value if in ownership	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
A Grade municipal engineering services (indicative)	R45 985,00	R45 985,00	R45 985,00
Hard rock excavation (25%)	R1 554,49	R1 554,49	R1 554,49
Average ground slope of more than 1:5	R3 844,44	R3 949,42	R4 054,41
Top structure	R116 867,00	R172 929,00	R199 014,00
Category E: Partially/totally blind. Installation of fittings to improve quality of life: Access to house (12 m² paving, and ramp at doorway), kick plates to doors, hand rails and grab rails, lever action taps, 1 m vinyl folding door in bathroom, slip resistant flooring and colour contrast on doorways, stairs, corners of buildings and skirting on walls.	R20 088,95	R20 088,95	R20 088,95
Total cost	R188 339,88	R244 506,86	R270 696,85

With effect from 1 April 2018 the Housing Subsidy Scheme has been enhanced to provide for the inclusion of six new higher density housing typologies for individual and sectional title ownership. The new higher density housing typologies and the maximum subsidy amount per unit are:

• Double storey semi detached unit with mono pitch roof R133 147,82
• Double storey semi detached unit with dual pitch roof R135 176,54
• Double storey semi detached unit with mono pitch roof R138 577,15
• Three storey walk-up: 12 units per block R166 046,32
• Three storey walk-up: 12 units per block R166 704,99
• Three storey walk-up: 6 units per block R180 104,38

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION NUMBER: 2468

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 AUGUST 2018

A VAWDA

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS DELIVERY FRAMEWORKS

DATE:

___________________________________________________________________

Recommended/not recommended

M TSHANGANA

DIRECTOR-GENERAL

DATE:

___________________________________________________________________

Approved/Not approved

N MFEKETO, MP

MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

DATE:

Reply:

(a): The certain person is not an employee of the Department of Energy.

(b) and (c): The position was not advertised. The appointment of the certain person evolved from the initial support role of the PPP Unit of the National Treasury to the Department of Energy in the design and establishment of the Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (IPPPP). The certain person was initially contracted as a consultant of the PPP Unit intimately involved in the development of the IPPPP and was in this capacity initially seconded to and formally assigned the role of the manager of the project office (IPP Office) responsible for the coordination and facilitation of the IPPPP.

(d): It is advised that the question be directed at the appropriate appointing party (currently the Development Bank of Southern Africa) with due recognition of and subject to the prescript of relevant applicable laws and institutional policies.

Reply:

1.  Yes, I requested the Director General of the Department of Labour to investigate the matter. The Inspection and Enforcement Services conducted the investigation. The investigation referred to above revealed that the complaint falls under the SASSA National Bargaining Forum and the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.

2. Yes, I commit to take steps to address the complaints and the alleged injustices caused to the specified employees in as far the complaints and/or the alleged injustices fall within the legal mandate and/or Constitutional mandate of the Department of Labour. In order to illustrate my commitment, the investigation conducted by Inspection and Enforcement Services is already testimony of my commitment.

3. No, because the action referred to falls outside legal and/or Constitutional mandated as well as that of the Department of Labour.

4. No, because the action referred to falls outside legal and/or Constitutional mandated as well as that of the Department of Labour.

Reply:

(1) No. The beneficiaries are still minors and no legal guardianship documents have been submitted to the Commission in order to effect compensation to the legal guardians.

2) Yes. The Commission is engaging the Master of the High Court for guidance on payments to minors in line with the guardians’ fund. Payment registration documents are awaited from one beneficiary who turns 18 in October 2018. Other beneficiaries will only turn 18 in the years 2023 and 2024 respectively; unless a legal guardian is appointed and legal guardianship documents are provided to the Commission, payment will only be processed when the beneficiary becomes a major / turns 18 years old.

Reply:

(1) (a),(b),(c) Please refer to Annexure A.

d) Agri-Parks funding is directed to production and physical infrastructure, and aligned to the development plans developed by each district.

e)(i),(ii),(ii) The Agri-Parks are currently being managed by the Provincial Offices of the DRDLR working closely with District Municipalities, whose Mayors have been appointed by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform as Political Champions.

Reply:

None.

Reply:

1) The prices for Mala Mala and Kruger National Park were determined by professional valuers appointed by the Department on the basis of the distinct approaches. For Mala Mala, the valuers determined the current value using the comparable sales method for the purposes of acquisition of the properties whereas for the Kruger National Park, the valuers determined the historical value which was subsequently escalated to the present value in line with the Consumer Price Index for the purpose of determining financial compensation due to the claimants. Consequently the amounts paid for Mala Mala and Kruger National Park cannot be the same.

(2) Yes, there are beneficiaries who experienced multiple removals from both Kruger National Park (KNP) and to the private game reserves (including Mala Mala) next to the park (KNP).

Reply:

No. The slow pace in delivery has resulted mainly from applying the willing buyer willing seller principle which has proven to be ineffective; the use of market value which is not in line with section 25 of the Constitution and the limited budget allocation for land reform.

The establishment of the Office of the Valuer General (OVG) assisted in reducing the value of offers made to land owners since it considers the factors listed in section 25(3) of the Constitution to arrive at equitable compensation for a land parcel instead of strictly and exclusively applying the willing buyer willing seller principle which is market related.

Reply:

Yes, the Mpumalanga Provincial Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs did compensate the livestock farmers of Kwasimu farmers association those affected by the disaster by replacing their livestock.

i. What are the relevant details of all assistance provided to the farmers

The Provincial Cabinet took a resolution that the Department should compensate the farmers who were affected by replacing their livestock. Agricultural Advisors, Animal Health Technicians and Veterinarians were deployed to visit the affected farms. During the visits the Departmental officials verified the number of animals that had died and a list was developed based on the verification. All the farmers who reported to the Department that they lost livestock were visited for verification. The Department had set a period whereby affected farmers were given an opportunity to register the dead livestock. The farmers who did not report any loss of livestock during that period to the Department were unfortunately not recorded in the Departmental list of affected farmers

As part of the compensation, the Department procured 1 000 Nguni Heifers for the farmers based on the approved list of 399 affected farmers who lost 1 583 animals. The replacement livestock was kept within Thembisile Hani Local Municipality at Leeuwkop farm, in Verena for diseases monitoring before handing over to the verified beneficiaries. A task team was formed which was led by department officials based at the Province and District. Ward councilors and farmers’ representative (chairperson of Kwasimu farmers association) formed part of the task team for coordination.

An official handover of the livestock was done by the Hon MEC Gamede on the 18th April 2015 at Kwaggafontein.The distribution of the livestock then commenced on the 19th April 2015 to Saturday 30th April 2015 at Leeuwkop farm.

A distribution strategy was used to ensure a fair and transparent distribution of the livestock to the affected Thembisile Hani livestock beneficiaries:

• All affected farmers received letters which indicated how many cattle each farmer will receive and the date on when they will come to collect their livestock
• Farmers provided their own transport for collection
• A formula was developed by the Department to determine on how many cattle each farmer would receive as compensation. This formula enabled all the farmers to receive livestock and those that have lost more livestock received more livestock as per the formula
• The farmer signed an acknowledgement letter after receiving the livestock, kept as portfolio of evidence
• A permit was also provided to allow them to take the livestock to their different locations.

By the end of the distribution period 847 cattle were distributed to the 355 farmers. Some farmers on the list were no longer traceable using their contact numbers and officials went to an extent of delivering the invitations into their homes and dipping tank committees, CDWS and councilors were engaged as an endeavor to get all the listed farmers. A grace period until the 4th of May 2015 was given to allow the farmers who didn’t pitch for collection to come and collect their livestock. After the grace period, the remaining livestock was taken out from Leeuwkop farm on the 14th May 2015 to a farm near Marapyane College research farm, this was to avoid high costs for keeping the livestock on the holding farm.

ii. the names of all beneficiaries,

List of beneficiaries who received the livestock is attached.

iii. the number of cattle each beneficiary received,

A formula was developed to enable the Department to compensate all the affected farmers as per the attached list

iv. Where were the cattle purchased

An approval to procure directly from the breeder Mr. HA Rassouw (Duma Investment) was obtained from the Accounting Officer

v. what was the condition of the cattle and

Most of the heifers were in a good condition as they were certified by local Veterinarians on arrival for diseases and were also monitored on daily basis during the distribution period

vi. the average age of the cattle;

Most of the cattle provided were first time calving heifers and were pregnant. Some gave birth during the distribution period on the holding farm

(2)  Whether his Department and/or the Department of agriculture in Mpumalanga gave any livestock to traditional leaders following the specified livestock mortality disaster;

Yes, from the surplus of the specified livestock mortality disaster, 28 (twenty eight) Traditional Leaders including the Ingwenyamas were given 155 (Hundred and fifty five) cattle following the pronouncement by the then Premier of the Mpumalanga Province Honourable DD Mabuza that the Traditional Leaders should also be supported with livestock.

(3) whether any small-scale farmers affected by the specified livestock mortality disaster were excluded as beneficiaries for assistance; if so, (a) why and (b) which small-scale farmers were excluded?

No affected small scale farmers were excluded.

Reply:

1.  All members of the Senior Management Services declared their interests for 2016/17 financial year. For 2017/18, all SMS members declared their financial interests.

2. Only 13 SMS members were disciplined for late submission for 2016/17. Disciplinary process is in progress for late submission for 2017/18.

3. (a) There are no employees on pre-cautionary suspension.

(b) Not applicable.

4. No costs as there are no employees that are suspended by the Department.

Reply:

I am still studying the report together with seeking advice from relevant labour market institutions, including the Commission for Employment Equity.

 

Reply:

a) The names and identity numbers of the Musina-Makhado SEZ are stipulated in the following table.

Names and IDs of MMSEZ Board Members

NAME	IDENTITY NUMBER	DESIGNATION	CONTACT DETAILS
Mr. J Morotoba	Director	Cell: 0828518849 [email protected]
Prof R Howard	Director	Cell: 0713589695 [email protected]
Ms. K Selane	Director	Cell: 0630912363 [email protected]
Mr. K Mphela	Director	Cell: 0733355791 [email protected]
5. Prof H Maserumule	Director	Cell: 083 3835890 E. [email protected]
6. Mr. P Sebola	Director	Cell: 0739173021 E. [email protected]
7. Mr. S Zikode	Director	Cell: 0825637046 E. [email protected]
8. Mr Thivhedzo Nathaniel Tshiwanammbi		Musina Local Municipality Representative	CELL: 082 046 5101 [email protected] [email protected]
9. Mr Freddy Tshivhengwa	Makhado Local Municipality Representative	Cell: 066 305 8676 [email protected]
10. Ms Thivhinda Mufunwa	Vhembe Local Municipality Representative	Cell: 0767822570 [email protected] [email protected]
11. Awaiting Nomination	Vacant	Community Representative	Mulambwane Community Representative

b) There are no approved projects that received investment support from Chinese companies. the dti, LEDET (Limpopo Economic Development Environment and Tourism) and its agency, LEDA (Limpopo Economic Development Agency) are currently finalizing technical due diligence processes with potential investment companies from China.

Reply:

Mr Dyafta is not an employee of the Department of Higher Education and Training. Mr Dyafta was transferred to the Department of Education in the Eastern Cape after the migration process on 1 April 2015. The question should therefore be directed to the Department of Education in the Eastern Cape.

Reply:

1.  The Department of Basic Education is in the process of updating SA-SAMS to include information on Learners with Severe to Profound Intellectual Disabilities which will be provided to Care Centres as their administrative tool. This will enable them to upload data into Provincial Warehouses and thereafter to LURITS. However, this requires all centres to have computers.

In the interim, the Education Management Information System (EMIS) together with Inclusive Education Directorate have developed a survey tool to collect data on Learners with Severe to Profound Intellectual Disabilities, which was uploaded into DBE (MOODLE) platform. This platform serves as a central database for Care Centre Information, though the information is aggregated.

2. The Draft Learning Programme is envisaged to be gazetted and promulgated by 31 October 2018.

3. (a) No, learners at the special care centres are not recorded.

(b) The Department is in the process of registering Care Centres through Provincial Education Departments which will assist in obtaining EMS numbers.

Reply:

a) Some of the lessons learnt in the implementation of the Quality Learning and Teaching Campaign (QLTC) – For the QLTC and/or social mobilisation to find traction on the ground it must be underpinned by the following approaches:

1. Engage and secure diverse and strong community participation in the identified programme;
2. Clearly identify the roles and responsibilities the broader community could play in the execution of the targeted programme;
3. The community members and/or stakeholders must buy into the programme;
4. Develop a shared vision with the concerned community;
5. Jointly conduct the needs analysis of the community at large; and
6. Constantly monitor, support and report on the progress on the implementation of the programme.

b) Criteria used to determine (i) officials

All teacher unions in the education sector were requested to nominate their senior representatives to serve in the Quality Learning and Teaching Campaign Coordinating Team (QCT) to implement the QLTC non-negotiables. There were five Union Officials who have been seconded to the Department of Basic Education (DBE) as follows: 2 from South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU), 1 from National Professional Teachers Organisation of South Africa (NAPTOSA), 1 from Professional Educators Union (PEU) and 1 from National Teachers Union (NATU). However, the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysers Unie (SAOU) resolved to waiver its participation in the secondment arrangement in favour of PEU.

b) Criteria used to determine the (ii) participants who form part of the campaign:

During the launching of QLTC, stakeholders (within and outside the education sector) committed to the QLTC Principles and further pledged their respective roles and responsibilities they could play in strengthening the delivery of quality learning and teaching. The following are the stakeholders in question:

1. Teacher Unions;
2. School Governing Body (SGB) Association;
3. Inter-faith based organisations;
4. Traditional leaders;
5. Learner formations including Representative Council of Learners’ (RCL);
6. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s);
7. Community Based Organisations (including Councillors); and
8. Others.

Reply:

1. The University of Limpopo responded to the posed question as follows:

The session was not an examination paper as reported in social and mainstream print and electronic media. It was a scheduled test for the second semester Education Studies (HEDA032) module. While the preliminary outcome of the investigation indicates that the test content was of an appropriate standard, the test cover had mistakes, which resulted in a small number of students disrupting the test session.

(2) (a) and (b) While the Department of Education Studies, in which the module is located, has sufficient summative and formative assessment moderation procedures in place, it was found that the test in question was not subjected to these checks. This unfortunately has been found to be one of the contributory factors that led to the disruptions of the test.

(c) Students and staff (lecturer, invigilators, Head of Department and Director of the School) are being subjected to a formal investigation process.

(d) The matter is still under investigation.

Reply:

a) (i) A total of 562 schools have swimming pools.

(ii) 22707 schools do not have swimming pools.

b) See attached annexure

Reply:

1.The table below shows the total number of Deputy Directors-General and Chief Directors employed on an acting and permanent capacity in the Department and the total number of women in each case.

	(aa) Acting	(bb) Permanent	Total Number
(a) (i) Deputy Directors-General	3	3	6
(b) Women	2	2	4
	(aa) Acting	(bb) Permanent	Total Number
(a) (ii) Chief Directors	7	23	30
(b) Women	1	8	9

2. The entities reporting to the Department have provided the following information to the question posed.

Entity	(a)(i) Chief Executive Officers	(ii) Directors	(b) Number of women
Council on Higher Education	1	7 including 1 in an acting position	4
National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences	1	2	3
National Student Financial Aid Scheme	1	26	9
South African Qualifications Authority	1	11	8
21 Sector Education and Training Authorities	21 (7 filled and 14 vacant with acting CEOs)	184	104
National Skills Fund	1	15	9
Quality Council for Trades and Occupations	1	6	3

Reply:

There are currently no operational investors in all of the SEZs in question. All these SEZs are working on concluding their respective pipeline investments, which are at different stages of negotiation and development. Two (2) of the SEZs, the OR Tambo and Maluti-A-Phofung SEZs are currently busy with construction of top structures for their signed investors, which are funded through the dti SEZ Fund. The Saldanha Bay and Musina-Makhado SEZs are finalising their investor agreements to enable the process of business infrastructure readiness support to commence.

Below are the projected pipeline investment values for each of the zones:

Pipeline Investment for MMSEZ, SBSEZ, MAPSEZ and ORTSEZ

Name of SEZ	Number of Investment Companies	Estimated Investment Value
Saldanha Bay	3	R484 million
OR Tambo (Gauteng)	4	R323 million
Maluti-A-Phofung	3	R440 million
Musina- Makhado	4	R145 billion
Total	14	R146,25 billion

Reply:

The total number of students enrolled in Community Education and Training (CET) colleges, Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges and universities for the past 10 academic years are provided below:

Academic year	a) CET Colleges	b) TVET Colleges	c) Universities
2008	*	**	799 490
2009	*	**	837 776
2010	*	358 393	892 936
2011	*	400 273	938 201
2012	*	657 690	953 373
2013	*	639 618	983 698
2014	*	702 383	969 154
2015	283 602	737 880	985 212
2016	273 431	705 397	975 837
2017	262 156	In the process of quality checking for official release in November 2018	1 036 984 ***

* The enrolment data for CET colleges is provided from the 2015 academic year onwards as CET colleges were only established in 2015.

** Enrolment data prior to 2010 resides with the Department of Education.

*** Provisional data as verification will be finalised by 31 October 2018.

Reply:

1. (a)-(c) The dates for the bulk release of examination results for the National Accredited Technical Education Diploma and National Certificate (Vocational) at each public Technical and Vocational Education and Training college since the November 2015 examination cycle are provided in the table below.

Qualification	Examination cycle	Scheduled release dates	Actual dates (exceptions are given in 2(a) below)
Engineering Studies (ES)	April 2015	11 May 2015	22 May 2015
	August 2015	04 September 2015	04 September 2015
	November 2015	13 January 2016	31 December 2015
Business Studies (BS)	June 2015	17 July 2015	17 July 2015
	November 2015	13 January 2016	31 December 2015
	November 2015	13 January 2016	31 December 2015
Engineering Studies (ES)	April 2016	10 May 2016	10 May 2016
	August 2016	06 September 2016	06 September 2016
	November 2016	31 December 2016	31 December 2016
Business Studies (BS)	June 2016	13 July 2016	12 July 2016
	November 2016	31 December 2016	30 December 2016
	November 2016	31 December 2017	30 December 2017
Engineering Studies (ES)	April 2017	09 May 2017	09 May 2017
	August 2017	05 September 2017	05 September 2017
	November 2017	31 December 2017	31 December 2017
Business Studies (BS)	June 2017	18 July 2017	18 July 2017
	November 2017	31 December 2017	31 December 2017
	November 2017	31 December 2017	31 December 2017

d) The target dates for the bulk release of examination results for the 2015-2017 academic years are more or less the same with insignificant changes due to college recess periods. These dates are in line with those of the past 10 years for both NATED and NC (V) qualifications respectively.

However, there were minor changes to the release date for November examinations. From 2015, the release of results was moved from between the 3rd and 8th January to 31 December. This change was made to afford colleges’ the opportunity to distribute results and conduct candidate registration in time for the new academic year.

To standardise raw marks, the Department is required by Umalusi to capture 95% for a subject to be considered suitable for standardisation. This is an increase from 80% for NATED qualifications.

Largely due to the introduction of an offline data capturing desktop system which provides an easy-to-use mechanism for the capturing of marks, there has been a significant improvement in respect of the timeous release of results compared to the previous ten years. The delays experienced in the release of the results were remnants of challenges inherited with the function shift of the TVET colleges from Provincial Education Departments to the Department of Higher Education and Training.

2. (a)-(c) Despite the general improvement in the timeous release of results there have been exceptions to this.

The Department may only standardise raw marks where the capture rate meets the required 95% as already indicated. In smaller cohorts of students, for example 1 to 14 students, the capture rate needs to be 100% before the subject results can be released.

The Department may not release results for the following reasons:

• Where an irregularity reported during the conduct of examinations is of such a nature that it affects the overall integrity of the subject, e.g. suspected leakage of papers. In this instance, the results for affected subjects are released as soon as the investigation is completed if nothing wrong is found.
• Where a candidate is alleged to have engaged in an act of dishonesty during an examination, e.g. copying, ghost writing, and crib notes. The national policy allows for 21 days for the candidate to be informed of the alleged irregularity post resulting and a final decision on the candidate’s status (guilty / not guilty) is made by the National Examinations Irregularities Committee on the basis of reports and evidence submitted and investigations where required. In such instances, the results for the affected candidates are only released where a candidate has been found not guilty.
• Candidates who wrote examinations starting from the November 2016 examinations without complying with the minimum examination admission requirements (MQ) as indicated in Memorandum 46 of 2015 as well as 80% attendance. These candidates were reflected as MQ in the Schedule of Results released to centres and would therefore not receive a subject result for the affected subject(s). Unfortunately, despite the instruction in Memorandum 46 of 2015, a significant number of candidates who did not meet the requirements were still allowed to write the examinations, which shows that colleges fail to manage the implementation of the minimum examination entry requirements.
• Where the examination centre has not submitted all the raw marks for all of the components of a subject, the raw marks may not be processed to generate subject results. In instances where a centre submits an outstanding mark (777) the accompanying evidence (scripts, portfolios of evidence) must be verified by both the Department and the quality council before the raw marks can be captured and the results for the affected subjects or candidates are released. This verification process can delay the release of the results of the affected students because Umalusi needs to verify the marks that are submitted outside the examination cycle.
• Where an examination centre submitted incorrect raw marks and requests the amendment of a mark, the accompanying evidence (scripts, portfolios of evidence) must be verified by both the Department and Umalusi before the raw marks can be amended and the results for the affected candidates are released. This also causes the delay in the release of the results of few affected students.

While the Department is responsible for the entire value chain, some functions are performed by different role players as follows: quality assurance, standardisation and approval of results (Umalusi and QCTO); the development and maintenance of the examination IT system {State Information Technology Agency (SITA)}, processing of examination results (the Department), distribution of results to candidates (TVET colleges).

Generally, the bulk release for the November examination results are released earlier than anticipated to afford colleges an opportunity to begin the new academic year on time. Where the results were not released on the scheduled date, this was due to the non-submission of raw marks on the part of the examination centre; examination irregularities; or due to examination technical IT system challenges.

Delays in the bulk release of 2015 examinations results

A National Examination Irregularities Committee (NEIC) has been established to manage irregularities and to ensure that the results of those found guilty are declared null and void. The core business of the committee is to protect the integrity of the results.

Irregularities can take place at any point in the value chain or organisation and it is always a challenging task to detect the genesis of the irregularities

For the April 2015 examinations all NATED subject results were delayed by approximately 4-9 days due to SITA examination IT processing problems.

For June 2015 examinations all NATED subject results were released on the scheduled dates except for some subjects where the electronic file submitted by the examination centre did not include the raw marks for all candidates or did not fully upload onto the examinations IT system. As a result, the outstanding mark sheets/marks were sourced and the “missing” marks were captured at the beginning of the academic year and an updated schedule of results were released on a date following the bulk release date.

For August 2015 examinations all subjects’ results were released on scheduled dates with the exception of the 25 subjects, namely, Electrical Trade Theory N2, Electro-Technology N3, Engineering Drawing N3, Engineering Science N1, Engineering Science N2, Engineering Science N3, Fitting and Machining Theory N2, Industrial Electronics N2, Industrial Electronics N3, Mathematics N2-N3 and Mechanotechnology N3, Engineering Science N4, Electrotechnics N4, Industrial Electronics N4-N6, Mathematics N4-N6, Mechanotechnics N4-N5, Power Machines N5-N6 and Supervisory Management N6 due to alleged irregularities. These results were delayed with approximately 7-22 days due to the nature of examination anomalies, which required a protracted investigation before the release of the results.

For December 2015 examinations, the results of more than 600 subjects were released on scheduled dates. There were delays in releasing the results of NC(V) (i.e. Stored Programme Systems Level 4); and 3 NATED (i.e. Industrial Orientation N3, Motor Trade Theory N3 and Mechanical Drawing and Design N5) subjects’. This was due to Umalusi requesting re-marking of the scripts of these subjects at certain raw mark intervals (i.e. 30-39% and 40-49%).

Bulk release of 2016 examination results

For April 2016 examinations, all NATED subject results were released on the scheduled dates with the exception of four subjects (4) (i.e. Plating and Structural Steel Drawings N3, Electrical Trade Theory N3, Water Treatment Practice N3 and Waste-Water Treatment Practice N3). The delays were due to the examination centres not having submitted all the raw marks for all of the components of these subjects. The remaining results were released on 16 May 2016, shortly after the scheduled release on 10th May.

For June 2016 examination all NATED results were released on the scheduled dates, except that there were gaps in the subject results for examination centres where the electronic file submitted by the examination centre did not include the raw marks for all candidates. The outstanding mark sheets/marks were sourced and an updated schedule of results were released on a mop-up date following the bulk release date.

For August 2016 examinations all subjects’ results were released on scheduled dates with the exception of 8 subjects, namely, Engineering Science N3, Mathematics N3, N4, N5, Mechano-Technology N3, Electrotechinics N3 and Engineering drawing N2 due to alleged irregularities. In addition, Plant Operation Theory N2 examination results were not released on the scheduled date owing to the examination centres not having submitted all the raw marks for all of the components of this subject. A protracted investigation into examination anomalies delayed these results by 1-23 days.

For December 2016 examinations all subjects’ results were released on scheduled dates with exception of Engineering Science N3, Engineering Science N2, Mathematics N5, Building Drawing N3 and Electrical Trade theory N2 due to alleged irregularities. The results of 13 subjects were delayed due to low capture rate: Aircraft Maintenance theory N3, Aircraft Metalwork Theory N3, Building Drawing N3, Building Science N2, Digital Electronics N4, Electronic Trade Theory N2, Engineering Science N3, Logic Systems N3, Mathematics N5, Motor Electrical Theory N5, Refrigeration N3, and Water and Waste-water Treatment Practice N2. These results were released between 4-10 days after the bulk release of results.

Bulk release of 2017 examinations results

For April 2017 examination all NATED subject results were released on the scheduled dates, except where the electronic file submitted by exam centre did not include the raw marks for all candidates (i.e. it was incomplete) or did not fully upload onto the examinations IT system. An updated schedule of results were released on a mop-up date following the bulk release date.

For June 2017 examination all NATED subject results were released on the scheduled dates except, as indicated previously, where the electronic file submitted by exam centre did not include the raw marks for all candidates (i.e. it was incomplete) or did not fully upload onto the examinations IT system. These were addressed as indicated previously.

For August 2017 examinations all NATED results were released on the scheduled dates with the exception of following subjects, namely, Rigging Theory N2, and Logic Systems N5 owing to the examination centres not having submitted all the raw marks for all of the components of these subjects. The results for these subjects were released on 10 September 2017 (three days after bulk release).

For December 2017 examinations all results were released on scheduled dates with exception of 5 NATED subjects, where there were alleged irregularities, namely, Engineering Science N3, Industrial Electronics N2, Mathematics N2, N3 and MechanoTechnology N2. In addition, there were delays in the release of results for 2 NATED subjects (i.e. Radio Theory N1 and Motor Bodywork Theory N3); and 4 NC (V) subjects (i.e. Engineering Fabrication-Sheet Metalwork L3, isiXhosa First Additional Language L3, Engineering Fabrication- Sheet Metalwork L4, ixiXhosa First Additional Language L4). These results were delayed by approximately 5 days due to the examination centres not having submitted all the raw marks for all of the components of this subject.

(d) The Department conducts a mock end-to-end examination process to simulate the examination process in order to diagnose any examination IT system challenges for improvement purposes. The Department has also met with all role players in the value chain and formed a technical task team to look at all examination challenges including certifications in between examinations. The Director-General also instituted weekly meetings with the SITA Chief Executive Officer and both SITA and departmental senior managers responsible for the examinations function. These meetings have been instrumental in ensuring that the pressure is kept on SITA to resolve the exam IT system challenges and is the reason that substantial improvements have been made in resulting in the past two years.

The Department has built capacity to conduct investigations of any reported examination anomalies or irregularities. Papers that are reported to have been leaked are replaced. If the paper has already been written, the scripts of the candidates are audited to assess if there are common responses that may suggest that candidates had prior access to the paper. The Department has made significant progress in eliminating the phenomenon of leakages. Umalusi commended the Department for managing the April 2018 examination leakages; while in August 2018, the allegations were not confirmed and Umalusi approved the results.

The Department issued a non-compliance directive to all public TVET colleges that displayed non-compliance to a lesser or greater extent in respect to the non-submission or incorrect submission of raw marks. This process has resulted in a significant improvement in terms of the timeous release of results compared to the previous ten years.

Finally, the development of the new integrated examination computer system is at an advanced stage and the data migration process, which entails the transfer of the old SITA data to the new system, is ongoing. The Provincial Education Departments and national examination officials have already tested and assessed the completed modules against the user requirements/ specifications

Reply:

1. The Department is still in the process of finalising the Language Policy for Higher Education, which was published in February 2018 for public comment.

(a) The draft was a revision of the 2002 Language Policy for Higher Education. The Department received a large volume of submissions/inputs from various stakeholders, mainly universities and agencies interested in language development in South Africa. The Department has analysed these inputs and is in the process of developing a final draft taking into account the various comments received. The following aspects of the policy are still outstanding:

• Department must submit and request the advice of the Council on Higher Education, as required in terms of the Higher Education Act (Act 101 of 1997); this advice may lead to further policy changes; and
• Socio-Economic Impact Assessment.

(b) The Department envisages that the final policy will be published by 31 March 2019.

2. The Department received submissions from the SA Academy for Arts and Science and AfriForum. No submission was received from the Afrikaans Language Board. All submissions are being considered to ensure that the language policy is consistent with the Constitution and begins to address the historical marginalisation of indigenous African languages. The relevant details of the submissions are as follows:

The SA Academy for Arts and Science welcomed the revised Language Policy for Higher Education and proposed that specific universities be assigned to develop indigenous South African languages. It called for research to be done to establish guiding principles and procedures for the development of new terminology for African languages. Moreover, the Academy suggests that a core cohort of lecturers proficient in African languages be developed to ensure that there are lecturers who can teach in these languages.

Afriforum generally welcomed the review of the policy and called for funding allocations to be made in support of multilingualism at universities. It highlighted the fundamental right of learners/students to receive education in their mother tongue or language of their choice. It supported the proposed partnerships with the Department of Basic Education in promoting the development of all indigenous languages in South Africa. It welcomed the explicit recognition of Afrikaans as an indigenous South African language in the policy.

3. The Department has already held a number of symposiums and seminars on this matter and is not planning to hold any others before the policy is finalised. However, the Department will continue to engage with universities and other relevant bodies regarding the implementation of the policy once it is published.

4. The revision of the Language Policy for Higher Education is being done in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and the Higher Education Act of 1997
(Act 101 of 1997).

5. The Minister will communicate to all stakeholders once the policy has been published in the government gazette for implementation.

COMPILER DETAILS

NAME AND SURNAME: MR SIMON MOTLHANKE

CONTACT: 012 312 5260

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Minister signs Parliamentary Reply 2623.

MR GF QONDE

DIRECTOR–GENERAL: HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

DATE:

PARLIAMENTARY REPLY 2623 IS APPROVED / NOT APPROVED / AMENDED.

COMMENT/S

MRS GNM PANDOR, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

DATE:

Reply:

See the link for reply: http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2709_REPLY.pdf

Reply:

A certain person (name furnished), (applicant) applied for the funeral benefit in respect of the death of the member, (name furnished), during June 2017. At that time there was insufficient evidence submitted to support the application to be recognized as the life partner of (name furnished) and the accompanying related benefits. The applicant was requested to resubmit her application for recognition of a life partner which resubmitted application was received in March 2018. This application however erroneously indicated that (the applicant) was the child of the deceased in which case the applicant cannot be recognized as the life partner.

It was hereafter established that this was an error as applicant was not the child of the deceased. There were however still insufficient and supporting evidence from the family of the deceased to corroborate the existence of the life partnership as the evidence submitted purported to substantiate the factual dependency of the applicant only due to the family of the deceased not wishing to provide verification of the existence of a life partnership. As a result of the conflicting accounts, the matter was submitted to the internal Fraud Unit of the Government Pensions Administration Agency to validate the existence of the life partnership between the applicant and the deceased. The validation investigation was concluded on 3 September 2018 and payment in this matter in recognition of the life partnership application is currently in process.

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

1. (a)(i) Nine.

No.	(b) Cause Of Each Dispute	(c) Nature Of Dispute	(d) Date Dispute
			Reported	Resolved
1.	Unfair dismissal	Unfair Dismissal	27/07/17	Not resolved yet - at the Bargaining Council.
2.	Non-approval of bursary	Unfair Labour Practice	14/02/18
3.	Non-renewal of contract / permanent appointment	Unfair Dismissal	29/05/18
4.	Suspension without pay for 3 months and a Final Written Warning	Unfair Labour Practice	01/07/18
5.	Termination of employment contract	Unfair Dismissal	06/08/18
6.	Termination of employment contract	Unfair Dismissal	06/08/18

2. (a)(i) Four.

Financial Year	2(a)(ii) Reason for dismissal	b(i) Number of employees paid severance packages	b(ii) Monetary value of each severance packages
2014-2015	Sleeping on duty, security breach and theft.	Nil	Nil
2015/2016	No National Treasury employees dismissed during the year.
2016/2017	No National Treasury employees dismissed during the year.
2017/2018	No National Treasury employees dismissed during the year.
2018/2019	Late coming/time keeping, failure to attend meetings/dereliction of duty. Poor performance of work. Insubordination and disrespectful behavior. Non compliance with existing procedures/leave policy, and contemptuous, disorderly or unacceptable behavior.
	Termination due to null and void of employment contract.
	Termination due to null and void of employment contract.

ASB

1. The Accounting Standards Board does not have any labour disputes currently.

CBDA

(1) The Agency does not have any current labour disputes.

DBSA

Current Labour Disputes

No. of Labour disputes (a)	Cause of each Dispute (b)	Nature of each dispute (c)	Date reported (d)(i)	Date resolved (ii)
5 (CCMA/ LABOUR COURT)	Dismissal for Gross negligence (X1)	Unfair Dismissal – Labour Court	27 November 2017	Pending
	Dismissal for Unacceptable conduct (X1)	Unfair Dismissal– Labour Court	30 December 2016	Pending
	Dismissal for Gross negligence (X1)	Unfair Dismissal – Labour Court	25 October 2008	Pending
	Dismissal for Gross negligence (X1)	Unfair Dismissal – Labour Court	03 August 2012	Pending
	Dispute regarding retirement age (X1)	Automatically Unfair Dismissal – Labour Court	01 February 2011	Pending
3 (Internal)	Dishonesty and Gross Negligence	Misconduct	21 May 2018	June 2018
	Failure to comply with company policies and procedures & dishonesty.	Misconduct	25 May 2018	Pending
	Gross Misconduct	Misconduct	10 May 2018	Pending

FIC

(1) (ii) Financial Intelligence Centre

(a) Number of labour disputes currently	(b) Cause of dispute	(c) Nature of each dispute	(d) Date reported and resolved
1	Poor performance	Incapacity	Reported: Referred to CCMA, 5 December 2017 Resolved: 13 August 2018
1	Constructive dismissal	The employee has referred the matter for review and setting aside of the arbitration, which was awarded in favour of the Financial Intelligence Centre, on 18 December 2016	Reported: Referred to Labour Court, 20 February 2017 Resolved: Not resolved

FSCA

1. (ii) Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA): - 2 (two);

(b) Both are breaches of internal disciplinary procedures;

(c) The first dispute relates to misconduct and the second dispute (which is still in process) relates to dereliction of duty;

(d) (i) Case 1. Reported on 20 February 2018

Case 2. Reported on 06 June 2018

(ii) Case 1. Based on the charges brought before the employee, verified by an employer witness and representation made by the employee, the Chairperson found the employee guilty and recommended dismissal with immediate effect. The Chairperson’s recommendations were considered by Senior Management and a resolution was taken to dismiss the employee with a month’s notice pay. The employee has referred the matter to the CCMA for arbitration and a hearing has been set down for 4 September 2018.

Case 2. Case still in progress.

GEPF

1. The GEPF is not facing any labour disputes at the moment.

2. (a)(i) Two employees have been dismissed in the past five years

(a)(ii) One employee was dismissed for breach of the Supply Chain Management Policy. One employee was dismissed for gross insubordination, abuse of company property and putting the safety of other employees at risk.

(b) (i and ii) None of the employees received severance packages.

GPAA

1. (a) The number of disputes is 4,

(b) The cause of each dispute were amongst others:

• • Unfair dismissal
  • Access to Information
  • Two different cases were reported with regards to employees appointed at different salary levels.

(c) The nature of each dispute entailed:

1. Alleged unfair labour dismissal for misconduct

2. The request for information

3. Unfair Labour practice with regards to salary disparities on two matters.

(d) Date reported and resolved

Date reported Date resolved

(1) 30/10/2012 - 30/07/2018

(2) 16/02/2018 - Pending Arbitrator’s ruling

(3) 02/03/2017 - Pending notice of set - down for Arbitration

(4) 12/02/2018 - Pending notice of set - down for a review at Labour Court

IRBA

The IRBA hereby declares that;

1. There are currently no labour disputes within the entity.

LAND BANK

1. (a) What number of labour disputes are currently being faced by (i) The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (ii) the entities reporting to him, (b) what is the cause of each dispute, (c) what is the nature of each dispute and (d) on what date was each dispute (i) reported and (ii) resolved?

Current Disciplinary Matters
Nr of Labour dispute (a)	Cause of each dispute (b)	Nature of each dispute (c)	Date of dispute reported (d - i)	Date of dispute resolved (d – ii)	Comments
1	Alleged unauthorized approval by the employee provided to client on a loan agreement. Process for approval not followed.	Gross Negligence	June 2018	Unresolved, matter under investigation
2	Disciplinary enquiry regarding non-compliance to Procurement processes	Gross Negligence	Dec 2017	August 2018	Disciplinary process was in progress however employee resigned and resignation was accepted.
3	Breach of PFMA and non-compliance to Procurement	Gross Negligence	May 2018	July 2018	Disciplinary process was in progress however employee resigned and resignation was accepted.
4	Fruitless and wasteful expenditure due to children that turned 23 was not removed from the Bankmed dependency list.	Negligence	June 2018	July 2018	Final Written warning issued to employee
5	Misconduct on I.T relate matters	Suspension
Referred to CCMA and Labour Court
Nr of Labour dispute (a)	Cause of each dispute (b)		Set-down date	Comments
1	Prohibition of unfair Labour discrimination	CCMA	31 August 2018	Recruitment candidate referred matter to CCMA
2	Unfair Retrenchment	Labour Court	Awaiting Labour Court Date	Matter occurred in 2016
3	Dismissal: Disorderly Conduct and Unacceptable Behaviour	CCMA – Arbitration	27 August 2018

FAIS OMBUD

1. (a) (i) The FAIS Ombud currently faces six (6) labour matters in various fora.

1. (b) (ii) Four of them were initiated by the former employees challenging alleged unfair dismissal based on a combination of misconduct and poor performance. The fifth referred a constructive dismissal case. The last is an alleged breach of employment contract dispute before the Magistrates’ Court by a candidate whose appointment was revoked on the basis of an undisclosed pending fraud case, discovered through verification checks.

The four disputes were initiated in 2017, the last initiated in 2018. Only the fifth has been resolved by way of settlement of four months’ salary. The monetary value of the settlement figure was R117 859.72

PFA

(1)(a)(ii) The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator currently has two unresolved labour disputes whose details are as follows:

1. Labour Court: Mr M v OPFA and others JR2285/15

On 4 August 2015, Mr M was dismissed by the OPFA for poor performance (having followed a poor performance process). Mr M referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, alleging his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.

The CCMA found that Mr M dismissal was fair and issued an arbitration award to this effect. Mr M then applied to the Labour Court to have the arbitration award reviewed and set aside. Whilst the pleading stage in the matter is closed, the matter has not yet been set down for hearing.

The OPFA has very good prospects of being successful in the review application.

1. Unfair dismissal – CCMA case no. GATW9446-18

A former Admin Assistant, Ms M was dismissed in July 2018 due to excessive usage of the OPFA’s telephone for her private and/or personal use. Ms M referred a dispute to the CCMA alleging her dismissal was unfair.

The dismissal was effected following several warnings of misconduct to Ms M for similar misdemeanours, the last of which was a final written warning in September 2017.

In addition, in December 2017 a meeting was held with all staff and employees were specifically warned about excessive usage of the work telephone for private/personal reasons. The conduct from the employee did not stop and excessive usage was once more noticed for the months after the meeting in December 2017. At her disciplinary hearing held in April 2018, the employee pleaded guilty to the misconduct and the chairperson therefore recommended dismissal as the appropriate sanction.

Conciliation was held on 6 August 2018 but the matter could not be conciliated. The matter is now awaiting arbitration proceedings at the CCMA. No date has been provided for these arbitration proceedings.

The OPFA anticipates that it has very good prospects of being successful in defending the arbitration proceedings.

PIC

(1)

	Nature of misconduct	Outcome	Recorded	Finalised
2015/16
1	Performance related	Mutual Separation	Feb – 15	Apr - 15
1	Performance related	Mutual Separation	Feb – 16	May-16
1	Absent without authorisation	Dismissal	Apr – 15	May – 15
1	Absent without authorisation	Final written warning	Jun-16	Jul-16
1	Breach of policy	Written warning	Sep-15	Oct-15
1	Dishonesty	Resignation	Jul-15	Aug-15
2016/17
1	Performance related	Mutual Separation	Sep-16	Mar-17
2017/18
1	Insubordination	Written warning	May-17	Jun-17
1	Breach of policy	Mutual Separation	Nov-17	Apr-18
1	Possession of unauthorised documents	Dismissal	Nov-17	May-18
1	Dereliction of duties	Dismissal	Mar-18	Apr-18
1	Insubordination	Final written warning	Mar-18	Mar-18

(2)

Reason	Number of cases	Monetary value (Rands)	Date
Negotiated Termination	1	1,270,466	Apr – 15
	1	2,219,191	May – 16
	1	143,937	Mar – 17
	1	7,250,000	Apr – 18
Total	4	10,883,594

SARS

1. (a)(b)(c)(d)(i)

The information provided in this report relate to all labour disputes that are currently being faced and referred to external labour tribunals. The Table below provides the number of CCMA disputes SARS is currently facing. The table also refelcts the figures broken down per the nature and cause of the dispute, per financial year of referral:

http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2329SARS_CCMA_DISPUTE.pdf

The Table below provides the number of labour disputes SARS is currently facing at the Labour Court and/or Labour Appeal Court. The table also refelcts the figures broken down per the nature and cause of the dispute, per calendar year of referral:

http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2329SARS_Labour_DISPUTE.pdf

(d) on what date was each dispute ((ii) resolved;

The focus of this report is on answering the question of “dispute currently being faced” and therefore those that are open and still in progress at the relevant tribunal. Dates of resoution are therefore not yet availble until these matters are resolved.

(2) (a)(i)(ii)

The Table below provides the number of SARS employees having been dimissed over the past 5 financial years, against the reasons for the dismissals:

Terminations Reasons	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19 YTD	Grand Total
Abscondment	2	1	1	1	2		7
Discharge Incapacity Ill Health	3	2	4	1	3		13
Discharge Incapacity Poor Work Performance	1	1					2
Dismissal Misconduct	51	40	25	29	52	15	212
Grand Total	57	44	30	31	57	15	234

(b)(i) what number of the specified employees were paid severance packages and

Terminations Reasons	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19 YTD	Grand Total
Severance Package					2		2
Grand Total					2		2

(ii) what was the monetary value of each severance package?

Due to confidentiality provisions associated with employees’ personal information, as protected by the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) Act, SARS is not in a posiiton to disclose more detailed information regarding this.

SASRIA

1. (a) What number of labour disputes are currently being faced by Sasria?

Sasria is currently not facing any labour disputes.

TAX OMBUD

1. The Office of the Tax Ombud does not have any labour dispute with its employees.

Reply:

DR BROWN

a) Qualifications required for the position – FFC Chief Executive Officer : Post-Graduate degree in Economics, Finance or Commerce / Business Administration / Public Administration

b) Qualifications of Dr Kay Brown (i) Senior Certificate at Westering High School, Port Elizabeth, 1985. (ii) B.Comm with Economics and Accounting as major subjects, University of Port Elizabeth (now the Nelson Mandela University), 1988. (ii) B.Comm (Honours) in Economics, University of Port Elizabeth, 1989. (iv) Doctoral Degree in Economics, University of Cape Town, 2001 - (In June 2000 registration for a M.Comm degree was upgraded to a PhD.)

c) Process that was followed to attract applicants – Chief Executive Officer Position (i) Request For Quotation (RFQ) was awarded to DAV on 17 January 2017 for the recruitment of the Chief Executive Officer. (ii) A formal briefing meeting was held with FFC Officials and DAV Official. DAV was briefed on : Understanding and appreciating the FFC environment, culture, mission and values; Provided with full job specification The ideal candidate profile; Shortlisting selection criteria and the methodology; The advertising requirements; and Deadlines and delivery dates. (iii) DAV received the advert sign-off on 2 February 2017 and advertised internally and externally in the Sunday Times on 5 February 2017 with a closing date of 27 February 2017. (iv) Interviews were scheduled with the above candidates on 6 October 2017. Dr Kay Brown; Dr Patrick Mabuza; Mr Norman Baloyi; The following candidates withdrew their candidature: Dr Vuyelwa Nhlapo: Ms Zukiswa Potye. The panel consisted of : Prof Daniel Plaatjies- Chairperson Dr Sibongile Muthwa- Deputy Chairperson Professor Nico Steytler-Commissioner Mr Sipho Lubisi- Commissioner Mr Romeo Adams – Independent Member In attendance Mr Velile Mbethe- Acting CEO Karen Robertson- Principal Consultant DAV Ansuyah Maharaj-Dowra- Commission Secretary. Both Dr Kay Brown and Dr Patrick Mabuza were sent for a competency assessment on 12 October 2017.

d) Applicants who applied for each position (i) A total of fifty-seven (57) applications was received. (ii) Fourteen (14) applications fitted the shortlist and were shortlisted by a panel which met on 19 May 2017. The panel consisted of: Dr Sibongile Muthwa- Deputy Chairperson Mr Sipho Lubisi- Commissioner Mr Velile Mbethe- Acting CEO( FFC) Ms Ansuyah Maharaj-Dorwa- Commission Secretary Dr Elsie Greyling- Independent Consultant Karen Robertson- Principal Consultant DAV The following five (5) candidates were shortlisted: Dr Kay Brown; Dr Patrick Mabuza; Mr Norman Baloyi; Dr Vuyelwa Nhlapo: and Ms Zukiswa Potye.

e) Reasons each specified person was appointed to each position Based on the outcome of the interview and competency assessment process, experience and qualifications, Dr Kay Brown was recommended for the role of the Chief Executive Office at the Financial and Fiscal Commission

f) Remuneration i. Date of Appointment – 1 April 2018 ii. Remuneration package at the date of appointment – Salary level 15 – R1 544 406.00 iii. 1 April 2018 – Cost of Living Adjustment 5.5% from R1,544,406.00 to R1,629,348.00 iv. Authorised by the Commission Chairperson, as informed by the DPSA directive and Circular No. 17 of 2018.

 

2. MR MBETHE

(a) to (d) MR Mbethe was seconded as per request by the FFC Commissioners to the Financial and Fiscal Commission as the Acting Chief Executive Officer by the former Minister of Finance, the Honourable Minister PJ Gordhan as per the letter signed dated 9 September 2016. His term as Acting CEO ended on 31 March 2018. From 1 April 2018 Mr Mbethe was seconded to FFC as Executive Manager to mainly oversee disciplinary hearings coming out of the forensic investigation report. (f) (i) 9 September 2016 – Salary level 15 – R1,299,501.00 (ii) 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018- (First Notch – Salary level 15)- R1,370,973.00 (iii) 1 April 2018 – Salary level 15- R1,370,937.00 - Cost of Living Adjustment 5.5% from R1,370,937.00- R1,446,377.00, effective 1 April 2018. (iv) Authourised by the Chief Executive Officer as informed by the DPSA directive and Circular No. 17 of 2018.

3. MR G PETLELE

a) Qualifications required for the position – Human Resources Specialist: Post-Graduate Diploma or Degree in Human Resources Management or equivalent qualification

b) Qualifications for Mr G Petlele i. Matric – Tshukudu High School - 1986 ii. BA degree Industrial Psychology and Communication - (UNISA); iii. Masters Diploma in Human Resources Management ( RAU) Now University of Johannesburg); iv. Programme in Business Leadership(UNISA–School of Business Leadership); and v. Master Degree in Business Leadership (UNISA–School of Business Leadership).

c) Process that was followed to attract applicants The vacant Human Resources Specialist position was advertised internally (FFC) and Externally in the Sunday Times with closing date 15 September 2017. Interviews were conducted on 23 January 2018 consisting of a panel of five (5) members. i. Mr Velile Mbethe – Chairperson – Acting CEO- FFC ii. Dr Ramos Mabugu- FFC Research Director iii. Dr Thembi Ntshakala- Programme Manager – Intergovernmental Fiscal Relation iv. Mr Mandla Tatana – Human Resources Specialist v. Ms Chandrika Jugroop – Labour Relations Specialist

d) Applicants who applied for each position One-hundred and eight (108) applications were received and six (6) candidates interviewed. Mr Gift Petlele; Ms Puleng Ratlabala; Ms Mandidsa Mtyila; Ms Chairmaine Koffman; Mr Anton Zondi Ms Jullena Thanjekwayo

e) Reasons each specified person was appointed to each position i. M G Petlele possessed the appropriate and relevant qualifications as listed in b) above; ii. Mr G Petlele possesses relevant in private, public and public service experience, gained from the following organisations/companies: Industrial Development Corporation, Land and Agricultural Bank, Coca-Cola South Africa, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Civil Aviation of South Africa and National Treasury. iii. Interview performance – Based on the possessing of the technical human resources experience, demonstrated managerial and leadership experience, Mr.Petlele was recommended as the best suitable candidate for the Human Resources Specialist post.

f) Remuneration i. The date of appointment – 1 April 2018 ii. Remuneration package at the date of appointment – Salary level 14 – R1,127,334.00 iii. August 2018 – Cost of Living Adjustment 5.5% from R1,127,334.00 - R1,189,337.00, effective 1 April 2018. iv. Authourised by the Chief Executive Officer as informed by the DPSA directive and Circular No. 17 of 2018

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

(a)(i) National Treasury does not own any land and therefore does not have any company investing on land.

(b)(i)(ii)(iii) Not applicable.

ASB

The Accounting Standards Board does not own any land or any other investment property.

CBDA

The Co-operative Banks Development Agency does not own land.

DBSA

No party, other than the Development Bank of Southern Africa, has invested in land owned by it.

FAIS OMBUD

None

FIC

Not applicable to the Financial Intelligence Centre.

FSCA

Financial Sector Conduct Authority - not applicable.

GEPF

As an investor, the GEPF owns a large number of properties within its property portfolio. The property portfolio is divided into directly held properties and indirectly held properties through corporate and listed property companies.

The link below reflects the amount and type of properties that the GEPF directly holds:

http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2449_GEPF_TABLE.pdf

GPAA

The Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) does not own any land.

IRBA

IRBA does not own any land.

LAND BANK

No investing company has invested on land owned by the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa.

PFA

The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator does not own land.

PIC

As an operating entity, the PIC has no investments in land, neither directly held nor through investment companies.

The rest of the question falls away.

SARS

SARS does not have any land that is owned or managed through an investing company.

SARS however owns buildings that have vacant land for possible expansion purposes.

SASRIA

Sasria SOC Ltd does not own land, and as such has no investments on land. Our investments are administered by asset managers, and consist of various asset classes. We are not aware of any of our investment being specifically on land, however, we do carry investments in property bonds.

TAX OMBUD

The OTO does not own any land.

Reply:

Bonds issued by Eskom in which the PIC has invested through a public auction, form part of the Domestic Multi-Term Note Programme (DMTNP) which is registered with the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). The documentation pertaining to these bonds are publicly available. However, the PIC did two private placement transactions with Eskom, one for R20 billion in May 2015 and one for R5 billion in February 2018. The R20 billion private placement is split into four tranches of R5 billion each, of notes maturing between March 2020 and March 2032. The R5 billion private placement was a short-term (one month) bridging facility that was paid back with interest of approximately R30 million, on 1 March 2018. The agreements for these two private placement transactions are confidential and cannot be made public.

Reply:

The South African Revenue Services has a mandate to control the import, export, manufacture or use of goods. SARS Customs is responsible for implementing a wide range of government policies, including revenue collection, trade compliance and facilitation, control over prohibited and restricted goods, protection of cultural heritage and enforcement of intellectual property laws. 

This mandate is inter alia exercised by the risk based assessment and examination (documentary and/or physical) of goods to ascertain whether the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964, (‘the Act”) or other relevant legislation have been complied with. In this regard, the Act makes provision in section 4(8A) for an officer to stop and detain and examine any goods while under customs control in order to determine whether the provisions of the Act or any other law have been complied with in respect of such goods. Section 107(1)(a) of the Act further provides that all expenses of landing, examination, weighing, analysis etc. of imported goods shall be borne by the importer,  owner or other person , whoever is in control of those goods. The Act further provides in terms of section 107(2)(a)  that goods may be released  on provision of security by the client, pending the final outcome of an intervention.  

This policy position is also internationally applied in the customs legislation of other jurisdictions and is very much aligned to acceptable international practice. In instances where the goods are not dealt with in terms of section 107, such goods are transferred to the state warehouse pending the final outcome of the intervention.

All Customs declarations are submitted through automated channels and risk assessed based on a variety of factors that may include commodity type (tariff), value, origin, rebate provisions etc. In this regard, more than 90% of all trade are automatically risk-assessed and released within seconds. The balance is subjected to documentary inspection where the officer will consider the customs declaration against a variety of trade documents in order to establish correctness and any further possible risks or interpretive matters to be considered. This may lead to further physical examination of the goods.

This process does often result in goods for a particular trader being stopped repetitively over a period of time, and accordingly, SARS was approached by trade to explore improved resolution where the importer/exporter, supplier and commodity type is the same. Formal communication was sent to trade during October 2016, outlining a process through which the client can attach supporting documents reflecting outcomes of previous identical cases for documentary inspection purposes. Customs, at the time, committed to consider and review such supporting documents in their approach to mitigate perceived risk which will assist in reducing the likelihood of an intervention that may require physical inspection. This process is being utilised successfully by most traders today, and although documentary inspection do increase the time to release goods, in most cases this process is concluded within 4 hours after trade submits supporting documents. It is to be noted that there are infrequent incidents where goods are stopped for further examination despite the supporting documentation submitted.

In instances where a trader is uncertain of the correct tariff, value or origin to use on the goods being imported or exported, such trader may apply for a firm determination from SARS. A process, which commenced in May 2018, geared at eradicating the historical tariff determination backlogs resulted in related delays been eliminated. Goods subject to tariff disputes may be cleared with SARS following the section 107 route.

Further to this, SARS Customs is in the process of upgrading its risk systems to the effect that it will provide necessary tools to inspectors to enhance their decision making capabilities and reduce unnecessary and repetitive stops.

Clients who experience delays as a result of this can also contact the Customs Contact Centre or e-mail their query to the Customs Escalations mailbox for assistance. Customs further provides a facility for a Client to apply for Release and provide surety pending the final outcome of an intervention.

In addition to this, in acknowledging the opportunities to improve service, SARS have published a Client Charter which holds SARS accountable against its commitments in processing times and resolving queries within published timeframes.

Reply:

1. (a) A certain person (name furnished) was appointed as Chairperson of the Financial and Fiscal Commission for a period of five years with effect from 1 July 2017.

(b) R1, 927, 497, 00 (The Chairperson is responsible for his own pension and medical aid contributions and since appointment has not claimed for any incidental expenses)

(c) No adjustment has been made.

(d) (i) The remuneration package was based on the salary level on which the position was advertised and the remuneration he was earning as a Special Advisor to the former Minister of Public Enterprises.

(ii) No adjustment has been made.

2. (a) The Chairperson has not claimed for any reimbursements

(b) The Chairperson has not claimed for any reimbursements

(c) The Chairperson has not claimed for any reimbursements

(d) The Chairperson has not claimed for any reimbursements

Reply:

ASB

The Accounting Standards Board has no loans from any entity in China, nor has it had any loans during the past three years.

CBDA

Co-operative Banks Development Agency has never borrowed from any entity from China.

DBSA

a) (i) NONE

    (ii) N/A

b) N/A

(c) N/A

(d) N/A

FAIS OMBUD

Zero

FIC

(a)(i)(ii) No amount was borrowed from any entity in China in each of the past three financial years since 1 April 2018.

(b)(c)(d) Not relevant to the Financial Intelligence Centre

FSCA

Financial Sector Conduct Authority

(a) +(b) Not applicable

GEPF

The Government Employees Pension Fund has no loans from any entity in China.

GPAA

The Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) never took any loans with any entity in China since 1 April 2018 and in the past 3 financial years.

LAND BANK

The Land Bank’s borrowings from entities in China in each of the past three financial years and since 1 April 2015 are summarised as follows:

Financial Year	Lender	Loan Conditions	Repayment Period	Loan
				Amount	Outstanding
FY2016	¹RMB/CCB Syndicated Loan	To apply the amounts borrowed for general corporate purposes	3 years	CCB R275m Other R500m	Voluntary Prepaid on 29 September 2017 Amount outstanding: R0
FY2016	Absa/SBSA R2.7bn Syndicated Government Guaranteed Term Loan Facility	To increase the maturity profile of the Land Bank’s funding liabilities	Facility A – 6 years Facility B – 7 years	Facility A ²BOC R77m Other R1 527m Facility B BOC R77m Other R1 019m	Facility A (Bullet) BOC R77m Other R1 003m (R524m voluntary prepaid on 31 May 2018) Facility B (Amortising) BOC R65m Other R289m (R679m prepaid on 29 June 2018)
FY2017	None
FY2018	None
YTD	None

¹Rand Merchant Bank/China Construction Bank (“CCB”)

²Bank of China (“BOC”)

The table above shows that a total amount of R429m has been borrowed from Chinese entities during the past three financial years and that no borrowings have been raised during the current financial year that started on1 April 2018. As at 31 August 2018, the outstanding borrowings from entities in China amounted to R142m calculated as follows:

Total loans received from Chinese entities: R429m

Voluntary Prepayments: (R275m)

Instalments Paid: (R12m)

Loan Amount Outstanding 31 August 2018: R142m

PFA

a) The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator has not borrowed money from China in the past three financial years and since 01 April 2018.

PIC

The Public Investment Corporation (PIC) has never borrowed any money from any entity in China.

SARS

SARS has not borrowed any amount from any entity in China in the past 3 years or since April 2018 and therefore section b, c and d of the question is not applicable.

SASRIA

Sasria SOC Ltd is self-funded, with no loan facilities and has not held any loan facility in the past three financial years. Therefore, there has not been any borrowings from any entity in China.

TAX OMBUD

The Office of the Tax Ombud has not borrowed money from any entity from China.