Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Privatisation, is it GOOD or BAD??

For the next post, today, i would like to share my thoughts of the Hot issue regarding the "privatisation". What is that mean by the word "privatisation"?? It means the incidence or process of transferring ownership of business from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business). The term used to be understand as the unrelated transactions. First, it is a buyout by the majority owner of all shares of public corporation or holding company's stock, privatizing the publicly traded store. Second, demutualization (click here) of a mutual organization or cooperative to form a joint stock company. That's what i understand from my reading material stuff. So, how this "privatisation" affect the certain markets due to increment of the tendency of free market???

Respond to Tun dr Mahathir post in his blog "IJN privatisation" or "National Heart Institution privatisation", it is well-known that Tun is the pioneer of "privatisation" of Malaysian assets during his era. He mentioned in his blog, "Privatisation" may bring more benefits but this "IJN privatisation" is the wrong thing to do because 80% of patients are poor. He also questioned Will Sime Darby shoulder the burden of losses due to costly treatment and which IJN lossed a lot of money just to make sure people gain their healthy??. That's make sense. Sime Darby should think about their proposal. I know they might be Confidence to gain the people interest but Should they think further of the proposal?? That's how it should be.

Certain Pro-Privatisation, they mentioned that private market more efficiently deliver goods and service than government due to free market competition. In general, the free market will lead to the lowest prices, improve quality, many choices, less corruption, and quicker delivery. Basic argument which is stated that governments have a few incentives to ensure that the enterprises should well run. Government also can raise money from taxation or simply printing money should revenues be insufficient, unlike a private owner. In this case, it seems that government would like to take advantages from the opportunity given by the Sime Darby. This is really unfair if the government act so.

Tun Dr Mahathir with IJN workers: Personal attachment might enlighten some issues to IJN privatisation.

For opponents of Pro-Privatisation, believe certain parts of the social terrain should remain closed to market forces in order to protect them from the unpredictability and ruthlessness of the market. Some of the utilities which government provides benefit society at large are indirect and difficult to measure or unable to produce a profit. Another view is that "privatisation" is not compatible to the government mission for social support. This are certain reasons why it is not practical to certain people. To conclude the above matter, i assumed that "privatisation" has both good and bad quality. It can't be denied that certain public sectors should be privatise to reduce the government burden BUT in IJN case, i oppose the Sime Darby's proposal to take over IJN for their Good reasons. It should not be privatise in any circumstances and let it be our pride to contribute something to the society (poor people).
Check out this website : National Heart Institute


Rowan said...

They shouldn't privatise IJN. Sime Darby is a private company & private companies are profit-orientated. They already have their own medical center, if they're hell bent on giving good medical care, they should invest more in their own medical center. Keep the IJN in the government's hands. If the gov has problem with cash, they ought to open their eyes & cut costs elsewhere like on useless kursus & trips overseas.

aMMerZ said...

Hidden agendas by certain politician and business people, Who knows?? It might be "Hot cups" especially the election at Kuala Terangganu this coming january. No more issues to put on the paper, maybe?!!