Momentum move exposes the cold heart of insurance

The about-turn by Momentum to honour the payout claim of a client it had initially refused refers, “Momentum pays out in another case” (November 25).

The backlash seems to have triggered the turnaround. Momentum acted on a whim without due concern about reputational injury and losses to its bottom line. It’s astounding that Momentum neglected to apply common sense, letting the downside risks of its products slip.

Now we’ll see Momentum through the lens of its callous act and not what purported to be an act of goodwill.

The whole episode has made one believe that insurance policies are fraught with complex bait-marketing practices, necessitating a regulator to keep the industry in check. It just doesn’t make sense that the insurer could gain from a client’s four years of premiums and upon his death elect to investigate his medical history, despite him dying on account of crime.

The regulator should scrutinise this very carefully to outlaw such a business model. This should include giving disgruntled policyholders carte blanche to move from one insurer to another without losing their cover benefits.

Clearly, there are parallels with profits and capitalism, neither of which has any sense of humanity. Momentum proved this with brazen brutality. It communicated a message that says: “Returns outweigh clients’ interests.” Surely we need intelligent competitors?

Consumers should think twice before taking out any insurance policy in future. Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni

Malema demands active resistance

Throughout history, populism and populist leaders have been the bane of civilisation. Their modus operandi is simple: brinkmanship or pushing the envelope. The result? Anarchy, subterfuge and countries teetering on the brink of civil war or war with other countries.

The trouble with populist leaders is that we dismiss them as imbeciles without political nous, and always pay a heavy price for doing so. British prime minister Neville Chamberlain flippantly dismissed Adolf Hitler as affable and harmless, and we all know how that turned out.

Right on our own doorstep, we have that stormy petrel of South African politics, Julius Malema, who revels in fanning the flames against whatever takes his fancy — Indians, whites and that old chestnut, white monopoly capital. Oh, and throw in the fourth estate for good measure.

He is a shrewd operator who plays the political field. Zuma and state capture?

Cue support for Pravin Gordhan, Mcebisi Jonas et al. White monopoly capital? Cue virulent attack on Johann Rupert et al.

Malema is intent on sowing the seeds of racial conflagration — all to sit at the head of the table. He doesn’t care if Idi Amin’s Uganda scenario plays out (Indians were forced to leave Uganda) or if whites leave SA in their droves. Sadly, his sycophantic and adoring supporters are mesmerised by his invective.

Why the volte face on Gordhan, who Malema so enthusiastically supported when Zuma fired him? It’s an old political ploy — when it gets too hot in the kitchen, turn the attention away from yourself.

The EFF (and in particular Malema and deputy party president Floyd Shivambu) have their grubby fingers in the VBS pie. So what does Malema do? Divert attention to Gordhan and Indians in general. After all, aren’t all Indians Guptas — deceitful, racist, opportunistic, devious?

Malema would never dare turn his baleful eye on our coloured population. They would sommer moer him!

As a South African Indian, I feel we’ve taken satyagraha (passive resistance) a bit too far. Fightback? Certainly. But let’s take the high road.

Vijay Govender, Harinagar Township, Chatsworth

Switch to the ANC? Inexcusable

While I enjoy many of Peter Bruce’s columns, I concur with Ghaleb Cachalia, “This Bruce & Buffalo bromance is baffling” (Letters, November 25).

Bruce is still touting a vote for the ANC rather than for the DA because “the EFF has strengthened and the DA has not”.

This, he reasons, would prevent the ANC from needing to align with the EFF. I believe he is not taking into account the damage the EFF is inflicting on itself as it faces corruption charges re the VBS banking scandal, as well as charges of criminal defamation and crimen injuria laid by Pravin Gordhan this week.

Furthermore, the ANC needs a strongly supported opposition — God forbid that the EFF become the official opposition party.

The DA has faced many crises this year and unfortunately allowed Patricia de Lille to run rings around it. Nevertheless, serious corruption charges have been laid against her, and she has been a hugely divisive and unpopular DA leader. The DA is right to call her to account.

It is also the only party that seems to understand economics and offer real solutions to drag our country out of bankruptcy.

Finally, I believe it would be morally inexcusable for me to vote for a party that has caused such serious damage to our country. I concede that Cyril Ramaphosa is trying, but he was deputy president for five years of Zuma’s destructive reign.

Janet Mills, Cape Town

A cure for the Julius seizure

The EFF has taken a decision, it seems, to have no contact with the South African National Editors’ Forum. So be it. Let the national media, in all of its forms, have nothing to do with the EFF. I am willing to place a bet that the EFF would be the first to squeal about unfair reporting!

Tom Lambe, Oakdene

Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132; SMS 33662; e-mail: tellus@sundaytimes.co.za; Fax: 011 280 5150 All mail should be accompanied by a street address and daytime telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters