Privatisation is a phrase which is not alien to Jamaicans, a phrase which seems to constantly sit on the tongues of our elected officials, especially ministers. It is an activity which has a deep history in this nation as JPS, Kingston Wharf, the airports, the sugar industry or even the transport sector can attest to. It is a word which is heavily loaded emotionally as it naturally means that the State loses control of an asset and one feels a serious dent in pride when a nation is forced to sell off its assets, especially prized ones. Now, I am no fan of privatisation. If things were my way the State would own outright or have a controlling stake in all major sectors (finance, mining, agriculture, transportation, telecommunications) but the economic realities of Jamaica are such that what I wish remains just that. Loss-making assets and assets which are bulky with their overheads and maintenance need to be shed at this point in time so that the ship which is the Jamaican state can be righted. I understand that fact and can grudgingly acquiesce to that dreaded action, but where I draw the line is when these entities are sold off solely to foreign companies…
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
jamaicachange 
Some strange notions and fuzzy logic, here. Why does ‘one feels a serious dent in pride when a nation is forced to sell off its assets, especially prized ones’? You say letter that you dislike assets being sold to foreigners but where are/were the national bidders? That prices often go up after privatization attests to the underlying problem that led to the shedding of the assets: the State and the nation were carrying economic burdens. I don’t see national security being enhanced because local crime is controlled by nationals, who don’t seem to have local welfare on their charts. If you want to have many pillars of the economy in the hands of the State you’d better show clearly that the State does the best or better job.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment, much appreciated. When i wrote about the dent in national pride I was reffering to the sale of Air Jamaica, a big reason why persons were opposed to the sale (to T&T) is because they viewed it as a flagship and representative of the nation, they had no problem with it going to the local companies (if I am not mistaken). On the national security front, that may just be paranoia on my side but it just seems easier to me (and I may very well be mistaken) that policing ports of entry would be easier if they were in local hands (though the reality we live in shows otherwise).
LikeLiked by 1 person
A ‘flagship’ doesn’t = a financially viable entity.
One could also argue that non-nationals may not be tainted or constrained by local allegiances that could compromise their work. Many entities outsource security work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree on the first point as Air J shows, it was a flagship but a burden. Could it have been sold to a local though? The deal with BWI did seem a bit rushed as we wanted rid of air j…
regarding non-nationals, they are just as suceptiable, no more no less. Im not saying that locals are less corrupt (we see thats not the case), what i am saying is that it is easier to strong arm a local company/owner into cooperating with investigations (if we ever went down that road) than it is to strong arm a company owned by non-nationals…
LikeLike
There’s no intrinsic logic to favour local investors, especially, if your country has low levels or rates of saving.
Talk of strong arming locals more effectively ignores the fact that local institutions and enforcement can be significantly weaker than those abroad or created by international accords. Case in point is how foreign jurisdictions deal more effectively with Jamaicans committing crimes that reach those arenas, eg Dudus, drug dealers, scammers and money launderers.
LikeLike