Calls for the government to be reviving failed institutions like the Ceylon Electricity Board and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation before taking on other private sector were strongly made in a Business Times email poll seeking public reaction to the bill to revive underperforming or under-utilised assets.
The results of the poll are on Page 1. In the meantime here are excerpts of the comments made, a few of which supported the state position:
General comments:
- What is concerning is the obvious determination for the bill to be passed. We could understand this urgency determination and haste if all public companies were working at super efficient level. I believe the government should first inform the people and maybe even show us how they intend to turn around failing public enterprise like Petroleum, CEB and then proceed to take over private enterprise. How can any intelligent policy maker push this bill and then expect foreign investment? Maybe this bill is intended to push the owner of Daya Group, a staunch UNPer to cross over. Leaves room for speculation!
- This is a disastrous policy as the wording can be interpreted and applied to just about anything. Given the negative publicity that the government is currently receiving overseas, one would have expected them to behave more appropriately. The only friends Sri Lanka has overseas are in the business fraternity. Fatalistic laws like these will definitely force them to re-evaluate that support. It looks like we are unfortunately fast heading to the disastrous 1970's again.
- Isn't it also ironic that a government that cannot fix huge, nationally important institutions like the CPC, CEB etc, is going to revive these 37 businesses in the national interest?
- The bill does not affect ‘Private assets’ per se. It affects those who have sought government participation or benefits or use state resources in a massively subsidized form. At some point, it is fair for any government to look closely at its own under-performing partners.
- Providing shocks to the system is the worst specially at times of volatility. Furthermore when has government ever managed a business profitably. So optimization of profit is a language that no government across the world understands especially Sri Lankan governments applicable to the past, present and also most likely future governments.
On Question 1:
- Apart from being contrary to all principles of democratic right, this is also one of many decisions being taken which are a deterrent to investment, both local and FDI, which is desperately required by this country.
- This type of bills should not be submitted at all leave alone rushing it through parliament. It damages the reputation of the country.
- This shows the “ulterior motives” of the government by rushing enactment of this piece of legislation to control the entrepreneurs who oppose the governing party or those who do not support them financially or otherwise.
- Due process would have been to not to rush this as an urgent bill but to allow public debate and move towards this decision, with consensus.
On Question 2:
- These chambers are run by a set of self centered individuals who fall prey to government tenders, tax benefits and political affiliations. Not only the chambers; even the opposition should have taken to the streets. But what can we ask from the current, inept main opposition party?
- The chambers should have more active in this situation. They seem to be concerned about their own interests than the interest of the economy in the country.
- The chambers and judiciary amongst others should be more assertive with their powers and do what's right. Not bow down to what's wrong.
- The chambers here have been 'spineless' on many occasions unlike those in other countries such as India. The opposition in parliament is no better.
- They showed the country they are a bunch of back-boneless hypocrites. What is the purpose of having chambers such as these that say “yes” to anything that the rulers force down their throats?
- The influence level of this circle (chambers) has dwindled over the past given that decision-making is done by a handful, irrespective of the sectors.
- They should even have mustered the business community under a solitary umbrella to voice this. Is there any developed or democratic country that adopts this kind of law or practice (which is followed in Sri Lanka’?
Saturday’s statement by the chambers:
The business chamber representatives from the Federations of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka (FCCISL), National Chambers of Commerce of Sri Lanka (NCCSL), National Chamber of Exporters (NCE), Chamber Of Young Lankan Entrepreneurs (COYLE), Joint Appeal Association Forum (JAFF), Free Trade Zone Manufacturers Association (FTZMA) and the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce (CCC) had discussions with HE the President on 5th of November.
HE the President was joined by senior cabinet ministers and senior government officials associated with the subject of economic development. At this meeting the chambers appraised the President of the impact of the proposed bill and requested that some companies be removed from the schedule.
The chambers were given the following assurances;
- That this is a one off bill
- The intention of this one off bill is purely to revive the 37 underperforming enterprises and underutilized assets listed in schedules 1 and 2.
- The government proposes to revive these enterprises or assets through the private sector.
- The present holders of these enterprises or assets will be given the opportunity to submit proposals to the government to revive their respective enterprises or assets.
The business chambers will continue to remain engaged with the government on the proposed bill.
Tuesday’s statement by the same chambers barring one:
Following is the joint statement issued by the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce (CCC), the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka (FCCISL), National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka (NCCSL), National Chamber of Exporters (NCE), Chamber OfYoung Lankan Entrepreneurs (COYLE) and Joint Apparel Association Forum (JAAF).
Proposed Act to Revive Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets
We are made to understand that the intention of the above Act is to put into productive use underperforming entities and underutilized assets that are in some way connected to the State, although currently in private hands. We have consistently maintained that all State enterprises and State assets must be put into productive use.
However, we believe that the proposed Bill may impact investor sentiment negatively and will thus be counter-productive in an environment where the country seeks investments in excess of US$ 15 billion per annum from the private sector, both local and foreign. Further, the expeditious manner in which the legislation is being enacted is likely to heighten such negative sentiments.
Considering the above circumstances and to mitigate the associated risks, the business chambers have jointly submitted a series of proposals to the Government. In addition, the business chambers have urged that operating entities which are going concerns and land if any that is privately held be excluded from the schedules.
The Government has provided the business chambers with certain assurances, the details of which were intimated previously.
Considering the likely negative impact of the proposed legislation and the widespread negative publicity it has received, we urge the Government to defer this Bill until it is subjected to wider public and stakeholder discussion and debate. |
E-mail
