Correct approach to CEB, CPC

YESTERDAY'S statement by the UPFA that the Government would allow a wide public debate on the future of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), is likely to help in defusing current fears and anxieties on how the State intends overcoming the problems affecting these vital institutions.

In a statement the UPFA said that a correct decision would be taken by the Government on the future of these organisations following a wide-ranging public discussion on the relevant questions.

Most reassuring was the pledge to the effect that the Government will not act in an "irresponsible and arbitrary manner" on issues pertaining to the CPC and CEB. The statement went on to say that the Government would be taking "a correct and beneficial decision on the Government shares of these two institutions." It was also pointed out that these shares had been "earmarked for mandatory sale by the former UNF Government."

It stands to reason that if public sector organisations, such as the CPC and CEB, are ultimately owned by the people, who comprise an important part of the State, the Government cannot dispose of State-owned shares in these institutions without the consent of the people.

Therefore, a decision on the future of these organisations needs to be taken on the basis of a coherently-formulated public consensus. Such a consensus could come into being only on the basis of a robust, public debate on the relevant core issues. In short, the people would decide on the future on the CPC and the CEB. This is, indeed, the correct policy approach to resolving the problems at hand.

Ideally, the State should continue to own public assets and resources and organisations such as the CPC and CEB are two of these. Marking them for sale is, in fact, a desperate, myopic act which should, if possible, be avoided because public sector institutions are, by definition, service - oriented organisations. They are a boon to the poorer sections of the public in particular. Acting on a public consensus in regard to the future of these institutions, is, therefore, the correct thing to do.

Critics of this approach would, no doubt, point to the possibility of loss-incurring public sector organisations being more of a bane rather than a boon to the country. On the face of it, this would pass muster as sound reasoning but we need to take cognisance of the fact that a proper diagnosis needs to be made of what really ails some of our major public sector organisations.

It could very well be that they are bedevilled by mismanagement and untrammelled politicisation. If that is so, these enervating factors need to be rooted out of these organisations or at least contained.

A sure sign of excessive politicisation is a floating labour force in these organisations. Perhaps if these institutions are rid of such encumbrances, their financial viability would increase.