Last nail into PC\\\'s coffin?

The government is a mammoth entity having a large array of organs, big and small.  Each of these organs is primarily designed to serve certain purpose/s. Some of these organs prove to be useful and some others fail to perform as intended originally and turn out to be a burden, financially speaking.
The Privatization Commission (PC) is such an organization that has apparently lost its utility, mainly due to the policy flip-flop on the part of the government. The PC came into being in the context of the government's decision to divest in phases the state-owned enterprises (SoEs) that proved to be an enormous burden on the national exchequer.
The process of divestment got pace in the eighties and early nineties but it lost steam since then. Only a few small SoEs have been transferred to the private sector in recent years.
The slowed-down pace of privatization has more or less made the existence of the PC irrelevant. But a recent directive issued by the country's Prime Minister to stall the privatization process has apparently driven the last nail into the PC's coffin.
The main reason for stalling the privatization is the reported failure of the private sector owners to start operation of the SoEs acquired by them or their failure to ensure an uninterrupted operation of such enterprises.  
The PM has justified reasons to be annoyed when the very purpose of divestment is defeated. True, the government through divestment wants to reduce the extent of losses it incurs every year on account of SoEs. But while doing so, it never proved itself to be oblivious of the issues concerning the job security of the people working in the active SoEs.
The prices at which the SoEs have been disposed of are well below the ones prevailing in the market. Besides, the government has always made the mode of payments by the private sector acquirers of the SoEs rather easy.
The divestment might have helped the government to reduce the losses on account of SoEs, to a certain extent. But the very intention of the government to see the divested units running efficiently, in most cases, has remained unfulfilled. This is because the basic objective of majority of private sector owners of SoEs, it seems, was to acquire the enterprises at low cost and use their land for other purposes.
In fact, the fault with the process of divestment lies with the selection of individual/s for transferring the ownership. Take the case of divestment of the Dhaka vegetable Oil, a state-owned edible oil refining facility. Its divestment had taken place during the regime of BNP between 1991 and 1996. The then industries minister handed over the unit to a businessman from Narayanganj, who later became a leader of the country's apex trade body, at a largely attended function held at the factory premises.  
It did not take too long a time for the new owner to close down the Dhaka Vegetable and rendering its workers and employees jobless.  It is the vast land area on which the unit is situated that drew the attention of the new owner who, allegedly, even used political influence to acquire the valuable property. The owner/s also, reportedly, had defaulted on the payment of a part of the value of the SoE to the government.  It is not known whether the government could finally recover the full value of the Dhaka Vegetable.
The allegations of irregularities in the divestment of SoEs in the textile and jute sector have also surfaced recently. The immediate past textile and jute minister, Abdul Latif Siddiqui, who was removed only weeks back following his controversial comments on Hajj and Tablig Jamat, allegedly sold a number of government-owned small jute and textile mills at throwaway prices.
The problems emanating from politicisation and corruption have virtually ruined many institutions and good works in this country. The process of divestment also could not escape the onslaught from the same.
Those in the government involved in the divestment process tend to think first how much they would get from divestment of any SoE. That is why they prefer greedy and dishonest individuals as buyers. In fact both want to be unduly benefited from the divestment of government-owned mills, factories and other properties.
The government can hardly afford owning inefficient and loss-incurring industrial and commercial enterprises since, every now and then, it has to arrange funds either from the budget or through the sale of high interest-bearing bonds. The public sector banks are other victims of inefficient SoEs. These banks are made to extend loans frequently to the SoEs which are the worst type of defaulters.
For the greater interest of the economy, the government needs to devise an appropriate policy for divestment of SoEs. The PC would one day lose its utility with all the SoEs divested. But until that time arrives the PC should be strengthened by employing competent and honest people to run its business. The government should not choose anyone having political connections. The divestment programme should be implemented by the PC alone, not by any ministry or any other agency for the sake of transparency and accountability.

[email protected]