Do not stray from constructive path

As should be expected, the Opposition has gone more than the extra mile to play on the sensitivities of the public with regard to the Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets Bill, which was on Wednesday passed into law in Parliament by a majority of 76 votes. No piece of legislation has been more at the centre of controversy in recent times, perhaps, than this one and on reflecting impartially on the developments surrounding this Bill, it could be said that it produced both heat and light in considerable proportions.

The Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the 'Ailing businesses revival Bill', as we chose to describe it in short in these pages, should put the issue beyond doubt on the perfect legality of the piece of legislation, but in actions that smacked of politicking and opportunistic posturing of a reprehensible kind, sections of the Opposition insisted on crying 'foul' at the Bill both within and outside Parliament. These actions accounted for most of the heat that the proposed legislation generated. However, we hope the Opposition would be guided by the principle that all that they say and do should produce more light than heat and contribute towards the conduct of a constructive debate on the issues in question, rather than encourage highly emotional responses among impressive sections to the questions at hand.

However, the position of the government on issues surrounding 'Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets', has been right along amply clear. The assets and properties in question were originally state-owned and given to the private sector for the purpose of productive use and development. What the state expected to see were viable enterprises which contributed to the production process in the country in the most dynamic fashion and which generated considerable employment opportunities as well.

The ailing businesses were given sufficient time to produce these results and since they could not live-up to these requirements, the state had no choice but to bring them under its purview for the purpose of putting them to productive use. What course of action could be more sensible? Is the state expected to turn a blind eye on White Elephants which were increasingly proving a huge burden on the public purse?

Governments which are committed to the public interest have no choice but to ensure that the country's assets and resources are put to the most beneficial uses. This is the government's rationale in bringing under its purview these ailing enterprises, some of which were more an eye-sore to the public than viable ventures which could operate on their own steam.

It is also important to recollect that these were public assets which were privatized in the belief that best productive use would be made of them. Therefore, by bringing them under its purview, the state is only returning to the people what is truly theirs. In fact, those crying 'foul' at these developments, really have no case, both legally and ethically.

The state has not taken the critics of the relevant piece of legislation by surprise by taking under its care the ailing enterprises. The state enunciated the relevant policy some time back that all such enterprises that did not live-up to expectations would be taken under its wing and developed. In a country that prides itself on its welfarism, such state measures are only to be expected. It has happened in the past and as long as governments are accountable to the people they are expected to make productive use of all their assets and resources.

But playing on the sensitivities of people is a species of brinkmanship that has to be decried.

The passing of the law on ailing enterprises is by no means an indication that from now on all privately-owned assets are in jeopardy. To say so, is one of the worst forms of political bankruptcy. Attempts to throw people into a panic on non-existent issues, is destructive politics at its most reprehensible. Rather, what should be aimed at is a constructive national dialogue which would help clarify issues and enable rational deliberation to be conducted and informed choices to be made. Hopefully, this would be the chosen path of the critics of the state on the issue of putting to good use our neglected enterprises and assets and on other questions that need to be discussed and debated.