Privatization of PIA and PSM: Significance for Pakistan

State of PIA

PIA, the national flag carrier, was one of the best airlines in the world back in the 60s and the 70s. It was equipped with the high levels of safety standards, quality and punctuality. It is the first airline to fly the Lockheed Super Constellation and second to have the Boeing 707 air jet. PIA also helped a number of leading airlines in the world like Emirates by leasing them its aircrafts and providing technical and administrative assistance to them.

Despite its illustrious legacy, PIA has been in shambles since the start of the 21st century because of the increasing competition in the airline industry and its inner inefficiencies, overstaffing and debt burden. PIA has the second worst employee to aircraft ratio, standing at almost 700 employees per aircraft while the world average is at 150-200 employees per aircraft. It currently has 18,331 employees and 21 aircrafts.

The founder of PPP, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto introduced massive nationalism into the country and is held responsible for ruining the economy, whose effects can even be felt today.

While state owned companies are not as efficient as private enterprises, there are some examples in the world of national enterprises performing on par with private organizations. Emirates, with a fleet of 212 aircraft, has employee-plane ratio of 220 to one. For Turkish Airlines, another important regional carrier with 236 planes, it is far lower at 81 employees per plane. Air India’s ratio of 127 per plane at Lufthansa (38,000 employees: 299 aircraft), 140 at Singapore Airlines (14,000 employees with 100 aircraft) and British Airways 178 employees per aircraft.

Overemployment is not the only issue of PIA. Inefficiency and mismanagement are also causing huge losses to the national exchequer. It has accumulated a debt of Rs.319 billion in the past four years.  According to a statement by PM Abbasi, it is causing loses worth Rs. 150 million every day to the treasury. It produced revenue of Rs.89 billion in 2017, 2 billion less than the previous year while its debt servicing has reached to Rs.146 billion.

State of PSM

The Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) was founded in 1971 with the help of the Soviet Union. It has the production capacity of 1.1—5 million tonnes per annum of steel and iron foundries, making it one of the biggest steel mills in South Asia. The PSM is facing similar issues as the PIA. Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Shaukat Aziz tried to privatize it back in 2006 but the Supreme Court intervened and stopped its privatization.

It is currently facing an Rs.370 billion deficit: Rs.160 billion in losses and Rs.190 billon in payable debt liabilities. The government has also given it Rs.85 billion worth of injections to keep it from shutting down. They have proved unable to operate it in its full capacity as it has only been operating at 30-50% of its maximum capacity. The technologies used by it have become obsolete and competitors are produced steel at a much cheaper rate with advanced technologies.

Common problem among the two

Both of these enterprises have been causing huge loses to national exchequer and it is unfair for the people of Pakistan to support it with their tax money. Poor governance is one of the biggest issues of Pakistan. Most governments in Pakistanis proved to be inadequate to govern necessary matters of the state, governing a business enterprise is similar to adding more weight to a broken back. Business experts believe that the lack of ownership and incentive in public sector organisations is one of the major reasons for their inefficiency.

In private enterprises, individuals cannot afford to withstand any huge amount of loses, efficiency is must for survival of any private business and bailout packages by the government aren’t easily available to private organizations. Once the stakeholders have something to gain by increasing efficiency and making the organizations profitable, they’ll adopt every method and technique to make it done.

Why are the PPP and the PTI opposing privatization?

The 2018 general elections are just around the corner. Privatization would mean that a number of people would lose their job and providing jobs is one of the best strategies for gaining votes and popularity among the public. PPP claims itself to be a leftist party with socialist leanings. Their motto: Roti, Kapra aur Makan (food, clothes and home) also highlights the nucleus of their manifesto. The founder of PPP, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto introduced massive nationalism into the country and is held responsible for ruining the economy, whose effects can even be felt today. The PPP is merely following the ideology of its founder.

The PTI, on the other hand, is flowing with the popular public sentiment with its sensational agendas. Their position appears to be merely opposition for the sake of opposition rather than for the sake of betterment. They have not provided any alternate solution to save the crumbling institutes but merely opposed it to side with thousands of people who will lose their jobs if privatization takes place.
As the world advances and evolves, old jobs are abolished but new jobs take their place, we must not fear change but accept it. The archaic ideas of protectionism and jingoism have no place in the modern world. While dissent is vital in every political discourse and democracy, it should focus on creating solutions rather than criticizing problems.

---
March 22, 2018
Source: Global Village Space

Malik Riaz vows to build dam in Pakistan but on one condition

ISLAMABAD – Amid Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar’s major focus on mitigating water crisis by building dams, Chief Executive of Bahria Town Malik Riaz on Thursday informed the court that he was willing to construct the Daducha Dam at his own expenses with a condition that bureaucracy of Punjab would not interfere in it.

SC hints at asking govt to nationalise private schools

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday hinted at issuing direction to the government to nationalise all the private schools across the country. The apex court restrained the private schools from charging fees during summer breaks and directed for issuing a public notice in Urdu and English dailies of the country.

The chief justice observed that state under Article 25-A of the Constitution is duty bound to impart education to the children free of cost. The CJP was hearing an appeal filed by various private schools against Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government’s policy binding the educational institutions to charge 50 percent fee during summer vacation. He said that currently more students are enrolled in private institutions than in government schools. Article 25-A of the Constitution relates to right to education reads: the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 5 to 16 years in such a manner as may be determined by law.

The chief justice further said that a poor man’s child cannot afford to study in a private institution due to the massive fees, adding that it’s government’s inefficiency that it could not ensure free education to all the children. He said that parents would be happy for not paying school fee in the summer break, and would have spent it on the leisure of their families.

During the course of hearing, the chief justice hinted at nationalisation of all private schools across the country. The chief justice said that there is no bar on nationalization hence, “why we should not issue directives to the government to take over all the private schools.”

The chief justice said that the previous governments did not give preference to the country’s education sector. He said that they have already formed a commission for the enforcement of Article 25A of the Constitution.

Earlier, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) had rejected a petition of private schools. Now, they have approached the apex court. However, the bench has refused to give interim relief to private schools.

The chief justice said that they cannot grant relief to the management of private schools without hearing the viewpoint of parents. Later the court adjourned the hearing for July 12 after giving direction for issuing public notice on the matter in Urdu and English dailies.

Source: https://www.thenews.com.pk/

Are Psychopaths Running the Show?

What difference is there between an insane radical suicide bomber who blows himself up in a busy market place and a prominent Western political leader ordering an invasion or bombing of a foreign country and/or imposing sanctions that kills infinitely more innocent people than a crazy suicide bomber?

Written by Michal Zoldy

According to a study carried out by British researchers back in the 1990s, the number of psychopaths in any given population is one percent. In the case of Britain that means that there are roughly 600 thousand psychopaths in that country alone. The problem is that such people tend to struggle hard for influence and power over other people, in order to be able to intimidate, bully and/or harass those who happen to find themselves in positions and situations in which they depend on those psychopaths, either as their subordinates, employees or family members.

That interesting British study was seeking to shed more light on the ever growing problem of workplace bullying and harassment. Upon reading those results and explanations during my postgraduate studies in Leeds (UK) I did a bit of reflecting and realized that I, too, knew two such psychopaths who had occupied high managerial positions and made the life of their subordinates a living hell. If it is possible, which it often times is, people have no other alternative but quit and seek a new job, just to escape and not have to come into daily contact with a thuggish psychopathic boss.

In other instances the solution is divorce, if a husband or a wife happens to be a psychopath.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy to recognize the scope, nature and implications of the problem at its early stages. Throughout history there appeared extremely dangerous charismatic psychopaths also among national political leaders, most prominent among whom had been Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, to name but a few. Letting people like that come to power, either through a democratic process or by seizing it by force, is a big mistake for it can even lead to global disasters with tragic consequences. It never ceases to amaze me why tens of millions of Germans, known to be intelligent and educated people, failed to notice and realize that Adolf Hitler was a textbook example of monstrous psychopath.

One explanation is that psychopaths are extremely skillful orators and manipulators. Be that as it may, it is highly advisable and useful to stay vigilant, just in case things might start getting out of control until it is too late. The price for failing to pay attention and doing nothing can be very high.

This brief glance into the past brings me to a question that offers itself almost automatically. Are there psychopaths, subclinical or downright pathological, also among today’s prominent politically active personalities or even political leaders? And what about the intellectual level of such prominent people? Just as a high school principal must not be an insane psychopath or a person with under-average IQ, so, too, anyone occupying or hoping to occupy a position of political leadership must not be mentally ill or an intellectually deficient individual.

In his recent article, entitled "Is our political class mentally ill?," Justin Raimondo poses the same all-important question and arrives at a grim conclusion. I agree with his observations also as a commentator from afar. At least in my part of the world politics used to be perceived as an intellectually demanding field of human activity where there is no place for immoral, insane and intellectually deficient individuals. But that is not what one increasingly sees even in many prominent political figures and "media personalities" of today. In other words, it seems that these days you can successfully climb the political ladder or become an editor of a national daily if you are a psychopath or an undereducated simpleminded moron.

Worse still, the more radical you are the greater the chances of your success. Rude and crude bullish radicalism tends to permeate and even dominate this upside-down world of politics, even, or especially, in English-speaking countries.

Let me give you an example. The prime minister of my country back in the 1990s had been ferociously criticized and vilified by American politicians for being an autocrat. The then-Secretary of State went so far as to call my country a black hole. But for all his deficiencies that man was an archangel Gabriel compared, say, to Bill Clinton who bombed a Serbian passenger train full of innocent passengers and even the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, George Bush who is personally responsible for the havoc, suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, or, for that mater, Medal of Freedom laureate former State Secretary Albright who said that the 500 thousand Iraqi children dead from US-imposed sanctions was "worth it."

What difference is there between an insane radical suicide bomber who blows himself up in a busy market place or on a bus full of innocent passengers, and a prominent Western political leader ordering an invasion or bombing of a foreign country and/or imposing sanctions that kills infinitely more innocent people than a crazy suicide bomber?

Yes, Justin Raimondo is right. Today’s political class does show worrying symptoms of mental illness characterized by extremely radical, irresponsible, and dangerous mindsets, views, decisions and orders. As a result, there is ever more reason for grave concern. While you can quit a job where you suffer under a psychopathic boss and divorce a psychopathic spouse, you can’t leave your country equally easily and move elsewhere. Besides, where else could you possibly go?

Michael Zoldy was Director of the Slovak Information Agency.

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/april/20/are-psychopaths-running-the-show/

Markets vs Conventional Politics

What If They Made a State and No One Used It?

Private and public continue to exist side by side. But which is favored by the direction of history? Services that make life better last and those that do not lose energy and die, even when they are funded by government.

Government can prolong a useless function but not forever. Technology is an inexorable force. Government can slow it down but it can’t stop it. The private sector keeps getting ever more amazing while the government’s services — all over the world — keep getting worse.

In every area of life, the trend is obvious and it is intensified by the digital revolution, which opened up a new frontier for entrepreneurs to innovate outside government systems. The new innovations have become essential to our lives.

This is a much more effective path toward liberty than conventional politics. All over the world, people are suffering under the weight of central planning, regulation, high taxation, barriers to trade, and monopolies over education, banking, money, and so many other areas. People are clamoring for more room to breath, create, and serve. But how do we get from here to there? Innovation is the productive path that is making the difference.

They can build the state. But they can’t make people use it, especially not if better alternatives exist. There are thousands and millions of ways to leave leviathan today. They surround us, from Uber taxi to Bitcoin to homeschooling to private medical services to online pharmacies to private environmental preserves.

Name any seemingly essential service that government has offered in the 20th century and you can name a cheaper, more effective, more innovative, and more accessible private alternative. There is nothing that states can do that needs to be done that markets cannot do better. The current technology trajectory is proving the point, many times over.

The result is political instability. A paradigm shift. Obsolescence of the public sector. The growing irrelevance of power. Ever less dependent on, and hence loyalty to, the coercive power structure and ever more cultural, economic, and social reliance on the structures that society creates for itself. The tolerance for taxation, slavery, spying, regulation, and war begins to decline. Eventually it dies because it is unsustainable without public support. That’s the story of how human liberty prevails over tyranny. It could be the story of our near-term future.

This is a peaceful path to reform. It is not a certain path but looking around the world today, it is one that is most productive of human needs and also the one most threatening to the political elite. The ruling elite won’t go without a fight but increasingly they will be fighting people who are already discovering a better way of life than to live at others’ expense.

Read complete article by Jeffrey Tucker here: https://tucker.liberty.me/what-if-they-made-a-state-and-no-one-used-it/