CHAMBER’S LIMITED CALL

The Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and Commerce, even as it called on Government to engage “in a more aggressive programme of divestment” of State enterprises, has itself adopted a cautious approach to those companies which it believed should be divested, preferring instead to cite as examples three profitable State companies and another with the potential for profitability. The three profitable State companies it has suggested for divestment are Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago (TSTT), National Flour Mills and First Citizens Bank, while the other suggested enterprise — National Broadcasting Network — has an admitted profit potential.

Meanwhile, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce could demonstrate its seriousness about the divestment of State enterprises by urging Government to divest the loss leaning Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC)  as well as BWIA West Indies Airways, a company in which, tacitly, Government has a majority interest.  In turn, should Government seek to privatise PTSC as well as remove itself from capital involvement in BWIA, the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber should be prepared to call on the private sector to invest in these enterprises. Should the Chamber adopt a policy position which embraces across the board privatisation, rather than what appears to be a selective approach, this would be welcome as a laying down of a reasonably clear line of demarcation between the public and private sectors, with no leeway for Government intrusion into the private sector.

Unfortunately, there have been all too many instances where Government has seen itself as obligated to intervene to save jobs and prevent social dislocation because private sector interests had pulled out and/or indicated they would pull out or professed an inability “to earn a fair return.” This occurred in oil, with Shell, in the late 1960s; sugar — Caroni Limited in the mid-1970s; the bus transport industry in 1966, and the collapse of the Workers’ Bank, among others. Government involvement had led in many cases to unrealistic wage demands, accompanied by a drop in productivity and ultimately to a high level “of subsidies and current transfers.”  These,  together with the sharp drop in the international price of crude at the end of the 1980s, resulted in Government seeking, with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), debt rescheduling with the Paris and London Clubs, and US$40.4 million in 1988 by way of a Structural Adjustment Loan and a Technical Assistance Loan from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Newsday subscribes to a policy of privatisation, but the private sector must neither view it as selective nor be prepared to seek Government’s taking over of companies, because a lack of management strategies including the failure to restructure and retool had made these companies uncompetitive in the market place. The Chamber, however unwittingly, may have sent the wrong signals on its policy re-divestment of State companies by appearing to be selective. In turn, by including the First Citizens Bank in its limited band of examples, the Chamber should appreciate that it may have rekindled memories, again unintentionally, of last year’s call by private sector interests for the privatisation of the Unit Trust Corporation and the First Citizens Bank.