Kenya to Sell Ports, Banks, Electricity Company etc. to China

[mwaswast]

1$ = 1035 Korean Won
huna hoja

Kwa ujinga wako funga hilo bakuli lako la omba omba. Hapana jilinganisha na na wenye dunia...mcheze ligi yenu ya Burundi, Malawi na Somalia.
GDP Korea South 1530.75 USD Billion
GDP Tanzagiza 52.09 USD Billion

 

[mwaswast]

Wewe hauna knowledge kabisa on global issues.
Privatization sio jambo tu la Kenya ama Africa.
Na si jambo la kukabili deni pekee. Privatization inafanywa ili haya makampuni yaweze kushindana na mengine binafsi. Ili yaendeshwe vizur. Na ili yasaidie uchumi.

United Kingdom ni mfano mzuri. Imefanya privatization ya makampuni zaidi ya 100.
Yakiwemo.

Royal Mail
Rolls Royce
Thomas Cook
British Airways
British Gas
Leyland Trucks
British Energy
British Rail
London Buses
Almost all airports
British Nuclear
High Speed
Bank of Scotland
Municipal water companies

Haya yote sasa hivi ni makampuni ya kutajika.

Thanks to Margaret Thatcher.

 

[eliakeem]

I meant to say 'privately run'.
It's the same thing we're doing in Kenya. We're not privatizing the port, but rather the operations of the port.

We experts term it as a PPP.

 

[Janerose mzalendo]

We expert term it as a PPP.

😂

 

[Elungata]

Israel kwenyewe wametoa bandari ya Haifa kwa mchina,undefinedhayo mambo ya kawaida,hizo bandari mchina sio kwamba huzibeba na kuondoka nazo kwao china,undefinedhata marekani kuna kipindi alitaka kuwapa waarabu wa dubay,bandari zake waendeshe,undefinedbusiness strategy

 

[kennedy0000]

We expert term it as a PPP.

Same thing.

 

[kennedy0000]

Thanks to Margaret Thatcher.

She left power in 1990. There have been many more after that.

 

[ISIS]

Acha kuzungumza utumbo wewe, hivi unajua maana na umuhimu wa serikali kuendesha bandari zake?, au kumiliki visima vya mafuta kama ilivyo nchi za uarabuni?.

Privatization ni second option kama serikali imeshindwa kuendesha, lakini sio kitu cha kufurahia hata kidogo katika mashirika muhimu kama KPA, Kenya pipe line, na Kenya Electricity company, jaribuni kuyauza muoni bei ya UMEME kwa unit itakua Mara nne ya bei ya sasa hivi ndani ya mwaka mmoja.

Kitu kinachosikitisha kwa Kenya ni kwamba mnauza haya mashirika ili muweze kufidia bajeti yenu, ambayo zaidi ya 50% ya bajeti yenu mnalipa madeni, kwa hiyo pesa mtakazopata mtaenda kulipa madeni.

Mtumeee we!

 

[eliakeem]

Same thing.

Same thing with what?

 

[kennedy0000]

Most of China's mjor companies are govt owned. E.g Construction and banks.
My opinion is based on what experts said about effects of privatisation on Africa's de-industrialisation. Even Imf itself admitted privatisation in Africa didn't work, it caused more poverty and unemployment. I know you know in the 80's most African governments used to own steel meels, cotton ginneries and so on. Unemployment was low, even here in Kenya. Imf with their jealousy of Africa's prosperity came to Africa in the pretext that Africa has too much debt and the governments have to stop doing commercial business. Governments were forced to fire people and sell very very profitable companies to foreign white masters who
bought the companies at a throw away price and were only interested in re-selling the companies to make a profit or breaking them down into smaller units and selling them. Some white owners decided to outright abandon these African companies after one or two years and so local business men bought them and mismanaged them and most of those companies are now dead. In Africa and Latin America, Imf admitted that the American model of privatisation did not work, they even apologized to African governments for destroying our economies.. I request you to kindly read about SAP programmes in Africa and Latin America. Safaricom worked, that is true, some privatisation works but don't assume all privatisation works. That is the mistake Imf did and Africa paid for it, for ten years in 80's Africa was in recession ( zero or negative economic growth). This is my opinion, you have the right to hold your own opinion too.

I know about SAP. Privatization was just one of like 100 requirements.
For you to blame the failure of these SAPs solely on privatization is just lame.

SAP covered everything from price controls to cutting social programmes etc.

What I know and the world knows, government-run companies always under-perform when compared to privately run companies.
Most of them outright make losses year in year out.
Management of these companies is given as political patronage irrespective of the president of the day. There is bureaucracy. There is no incentive to innovate etc. the list is long.

Privatizing a company properly is paramount. Even when selling, you can't just sell it to some briefcase company. It has to come tied with conditions to benefit the community and country.

 

[Mkikuyu- Akili timamu]

Most of China's mjor companies are govt owned. E.g Construction and banks.
My opinion is based on what experts said about effects of privatisation on Africa's de-industrialisation. Even Imf itself admitted privatisation in Africa didn't work, it caused more poverty and unemployment. I know you know in the 80's most African governments used to own steel meels, cotton ginneries and so on. Unemployment was low, even here in Kenya. Imf with their jealousy of Africa's prosperity came to Africa in the pretext that Africa has too much debt and the governments have to stop doing commercial business. Governments were forced to fire people and sell very very profitable companies to foreign white masters who
bought the companies at a throw away price and were only interested in re-selling the companies to make a profit or breaking them down into smaller units and selling them. Some white owners decided to outright abandon these African companies after one or two years and so local business men bought them and mismanaged them and most of those companies are now dead. In Africa and Latin America, Imf admitted that the American model of privatisation did not work, they even apologized to African governments for destroying our economies.. I request you to kindly read about SAP programmes in Africa and Latin America. Safaricom worked, that is true, some privatisation works but don't assume all privatisation works. That is the mistake Imf did and Africa paid for it, for ten years in 80's Africa was in recession ( zero or negative economic growth). This is my opinion, you have the right to hold your own opinion too.

Safaricom was not sold to private investors because it was making loses.It was sold to enable it get cash for expansion and enlarge its total equity to qualify for large loans ment for development.
A person mentioning already succeful Safaricom/kengen/kcb as a privitisation success is an idiot.
Privitising loss making business is always ends in tears..KQ,RVR,TelkomKenya et al
because the problem with loss making is not about who the shareholders are but how the business is run.
Imagine the state of safaricom could be after so called privitasation and then they fired Michael Joseph and his entire management team! or in the same case, KenGen's Iconic MD Engineer Njoroge and his team were fired after the KenGen IPO.

 

[kennedy0000]

Kwanini hutaki kuanga nje ya profit?. Private sector inaangalia faida pekee. Ndio sababu zinaendesha biashara kwa ufanisi zaidi, Leo hii KPA unaweza kuwa imeajiri zaidi ya wakenya elfu 4, mkiwapa private sector watabakisha elfu moja pekee, yes efficiency itaongeza but in expense of unemployment, how do you balance this if you are the President of Kenya?

Efficiency at the port will create thousands of jobs elsewhere.

Huwezi tumia argument ati tuendelee kuwa inefficient kwa sababu watu wameajiriwa. That's how you remain LDC.

 

[kennedy0000]

Safaricom was not sold to private investors because it was making loses.It was sold to enable it get cash for expansion and enlarge its total equity to qualify for large loans ment for development.
A person mentioning already succeful Safaricom/kengen/kcb as a privitisation success is an idiot.
Privitising loss making business is always ends in tears..KQ,RVR,TelkomKenya et al
because the problem with loss making is not about who the shareholders are but how the business is run.
Imagine the state of safaricom could be after so called privitasation and then they fired Michael Joseph and his entire management team! or in the same case, KenGen's Iconic MD Engineer Njoroge and his team were fired after the KenGen IPO.

Umekuja kuropoka huku tena.
Did you read the reasons indicated for selling KenGen shares? Ama you think because a company is already profitable it doesn't need capital to grow?

The government sold 40% of Safaricom to Vodafone in 2000. How successful was Safaricom in 2000?
If that's not the biggest privatization success, tell us what is.

 

[eliakeem]

Israel kwenyewe wametoa bandari ya Haifa kwa mchina,undefinedhayo mambo ya kawaida,hizo bandari mchina sio kwamba huzibeba na kuondoka nazo kwao china,undefinedhata marekani kuna kipindi alitaka kuwapa waarabu wa dubay,bandari zake waendeshe,undefinedbusiness strategy

That is a concession, normally last for long time e.g. 30, 50, 60, 90 yrs one of PPP type. The Chinese also have a DBFOT of Hambantota Port Authority in Sri Lanka. Though initially the deal was a market/Commercial loan, turned to a concession of 99 yrs after Sri Lanka became unable to honor the agreed amortization schedule.

 

[joto la jiwe]

Efficiency at the port will create thousands of jobs elsewhere.

Huwezi tumia argument ati tuendelee kuwa inefficient kwa sababu watu wameajiriwa. That's how you remain LDC.

Kwanini sasa kama efficiency inatengeneza employment elsewhere, Kenya unemployment rate is keeping on rising?, unless you change your way of thinking, Kenya shall remain failed state forever.

 

[kennedy0000]

Kwanini sasa kama efficiency inatengeneza employment elsewhere, Kenya unemployment rate is keeping on rising?, unless you change your way of thinking, Kenya shall remain failed state forever.

Kuna vitu itabidi utembee kutoka LDC country uelewe.
Big efficient companies create a spiral effect. Safaricom, Equity and other banks may only employ a few thousands directly, but they have over 100,000 working as agents.

If today Posta Kenya was working as well as it should. eg. compared to something like DHL, Kenya's logistics business would be booming. People would have the confidence to create things knowing they can have them delivered to any part of the country or the world just by selling online.

Kenya has an unemployment issue because we do not have enough well performing companies to employ people directly or indirectly. That's why we are privatizing to change that.

 

[Mkikuyu- Akili timamu]

Umekuja kuropoka huku tena.
Did you read the reasons indicated for selling KenGen shares? Ama you think because a company is already profitable it doesn't need capital to grow?

The government sold 40% of Safaricom to Vodafone in 2000. How successful was Safaricom in 2000?
If that's not the biggest privatization success, tell us what is.

View attachment 925930

Safaricom had already captured more than 40% subscriber base before "privitasation" and was making a tidy profit. (And before that Safcom was a joinventure bween Gok 60% amd Vodafone 40%)
The reasons cited by Gok for selling its stake at KenGen are aganist the classical argument of privitatisation -kengen is doing very well in corporate governance(not corrupt or opaque),its profitable and pays divided, its shareholding is already diverse..The GoK is trying to infuse sickness in a company that is not sick.
The 5th Reason is most disturbing, "selling to get reasorces for supporting gvt budget" That is the most miopic and shorterm thinking I have ever seen..
Its like selling your already profitable matatu bus for you to be able to pay for your household expenses..

 

[Chamoto]

$1 = Ksh 101
$1 = Tsh 2,290

Kojoa ulale.

Ukweli ni kuwa $1 = Ksh 1010

 

[Tony254]

I know about SAP. Privatization was just one of like 100 requirements.
For you to blame the failure of these SAPs solely on privatization is just lame.

SAP covered everything from price controls to cutting social programmes etc.

What I know and the world knows, government-run companies always under-perform when compared to privately run companies.
Most of them outright make losses year in year out.
Management of these companies is given as political patronage irrespective of the president of the day. There is bureaucracy. There is no incentive to innovate etc. the list is long.

Privatizing a company properly is paramount. Even when selling, you can't just sell it to some briefcase company. It has to come tied with conditions to benefit the community and country.

Again i still insist, privatisation is a disaster strategy for the government of Kenya. Let them not try to privatise Kenya pipeline or Kenya ports. They can privatise the others, i have no problem. I am also thoroughly informed about international affairs and i can tell you that many British people consider U.K's privatisation as a total disaster. It has led to de-industrialisation in some areas and massive unemployment in others. Some British people are blaming Thatcher for this disaster. For the link of just one of these complainants:
10 reasons to end privatisation now

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience.

PRIVACY POLICY
OK, I AGREE
NO, THANKS
Jump to navigation
We Own It
Public services for
people not profit
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Contact us
DONATE
About
Why public ownership?
Our public services
News
Act now
10 REASONS TO END PRIVATISATION NOW
Here are 10 reasons why public services should never be privatised:

1 - Your services get worse

2 - Privatisation costs you more

3 - You can't hold private companies accountable

4 - Privatisation creates a divided society

5 - You don't get a democratic voice

6 - Public services are natural monopolies

7 - Private companies cherry pick services

8 - Privatisation means fragmentation

9 - Privatisation means less flexibility

10 - Privatisation is risky



Join 37,000 people demanding public ownership
Enter email to sign *

1. Your services get worse
Public services involve caring for people. But private companies make a profit from public services by cutting corners or underinvesting.

There is a conflict between making a profit and taking the time to care. For example, private care workers often can't stop for a cup of tea with an older, vulnerable person they are caring for - because they're only allowed 15 minutes for their visits.




2. Privatisation costs you more
You pay more, both as a taxpayer and directly when they privatise public services.

Have you noticed how your water bills, energy bills, train and bus fares keep on rising in real terms? And did you know that the US privatised health system costs double what we pay for ours?

In a privatised service, profits must be paid to shareholders, not reinvested in better services. Interest rates are higher for private companies than they are for government. Plus, there are the extra costs of creating and regulating an artificial market.




3. You can't hold private companies accountable
If a private company runs a service, they are not democratically accountable to you. You don't have a voice.

Contracts to deliver public services are agreed between private companies and government behind closed doors. There is very little transparency, public accountability or scrutiny. The companies are not subject to Freedom of Information requests because of ‘commercial confidentiality’.

When private companies fail to deliver, the public has no powers to intervene and government (local and national) doesn’t always have the time or expertise to force them to keep their promises.



4. Privatisation creates a divided society
Public services are important to meet everyone's basic needs, so we can all be part of the community.

Schools and hospitals are not optional extras. We all need and rely on public services - they are universal. That means they need to be accessible and high quality for everyone.

Privatisation often goes hand in hand with encouraging richer people to pay more and opt out of the services we all use. This leads to division, making it harder to provide excellent public services for everyone.




5. You don't get a democratic voice
When we go to the shops, we all make our own individual decisions about what we want. Public services are different – they give us a chance to come together to decide what kind of society we want to live in.

For example, we might want clean, green energy for our future – but the private companies control the energy ‘market’ and often invest in dirty energy, without giving us a say.




6. Public services are natural monopolies
Privatisation was introduced because of a belief in free markets and consumer choice. But public services are often what economists call ‘natural monopolies’.

For example, when you take the train, you don’t really have a choice about which one to use. There’s no real competition. Facebook is another, relatively new ‘natural monopoly’. If all your friends are using it, it's difficult for you not to.

Private monopolies often become the worst of all worlds. You don’t have consumer power because you can’t go elsewhere. But you don’t have power as a citizen to make the service better through democratic accountability.


Cherries

7. Private companies cherry pick services
Private companies cherry pick the profitable bits of a service so they can make as much money as possible.

For example, bus companies will only run services in busy areas, so rural communities lose out unless government steps in with a subsidy. It's more efficient to run public services in public ownership so that profits can be reinvested across the whole network as needed.

In probation services, private companies are paid to manage medium to low risk offenders, while the state continues to take responsibility for high risk offenders.




8. Privatisation means fragmentation
When lots of private companies are involved in delivering a public service, this can create a complicated, fragmented system where it’s not always clear who’s doing what. For example, our railway.

Private companies don’t necessarily have much incentive to work together and share information. This makes it difficult to provide an integrated service.

Privatisation is fragmenting our NHS and the cost of the internal market is at least £4.5 billion a year.


Capita cartoon

9. Privatisation means less flexibility
Councils and government departments are responsible for meeting the needs of the public – but privatisation means less flexibility for changing circumstances.

If an outsourcing contract with a private company needs changing, government must pay more to make changes or improvements, add in extras or to opt out.

And selling off public assets (like student loans) or public land (like school playing fields) means we the public have fewer options and resources for delivering the services we’ll need in the future.




10. Privatisation is risky
Look what happened when Carillion failed. If private companies are running our public services and are too big to fail, the public has to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

Share to spread the word.

Latest news

Britain fell for a neoliberal con trick - even the IMF says so
Wed 17 Oct 2018. Source: www.theguardian.com

Investors benefit from water groups’ borrowing at expense of customers
Fri 12 Oct 2018. Source: www.ft.com

Public Ownership 2.0: There is such a thing as society
Let's make public ownership so successful it can never be dismantled!
Fri 13 Jul 2018.

Firefighting training at an MoD site
4 reasons why the MoD’s fire service needs to stay public
Wed 06 Jun 2018.


'Privatisation has failed repeatedly'
Fri 11 May 2018. Source: newint.org


The case for public ownership
Tue 01 May 2018. Source: newint.org


Is Capita wobbling too? Just another reason to end local privatisation
Mon 23 Apr 2018.


Privatisation overseas is a waste of government aid money
Mon 12 Feb 2018. Source: www.newstatesman.com

Find out more

Video
G4S prison failure shows that privatisation isn't working
Source: www.youtube.com

Video
Let's END local privatisation
Source: www.youtube.com

Video
Capita and Serco are gearing up to run the MoD fire service. Here's how we stop them.
Source: www.youtube.com
Download
We Own It leaflet

Research
Pills and Profits: How drug companies make a killing out of public research
Source: stopaids.org.uk

Video
John McDonnell on Labour's public ownership policies
Source: www.youtube.com

Download
We Own It manifesto 2017: How public ownership can give us real control

Video
Why do we pay more for privatisation?
Source: www.youtube.com
About Why public ownership? Our public services News Act now
We Own It is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (company number 8239094). Privacy policy

Website by Artful Robot

 

[kennedy0000]

Safaricom had already captured more than 40% subscriber base before "privitasation" and was making a tidy profit.
The reasons cited by Gok for selling its stake at KenGen are aganist the classical argument of privitatisation -kengen is doing very well in corporate governance(not corrupt or opaque),its profitable and pays divided, its shareholding is already diverse..The GoK is trying to infuse sickness in a company that is not sick.
The 5th Reason is most disturbing, "selling to get reasorces for supporting gvt budget" That is the most miopic and shorterm thinking I have ever seen..
Its like selling your already profitable matatu bus for you to be able to pay for your household expenses..

In 2000 I doubt even 30,000 Kenyans had cell phones.
Even if Safaricom had 40% of that, what kind of 'success' is that.
If it continued being managed by the government, it would have ultimately gone the route of all government-run companies.
Stagnation, zero innovation and probably even collapse.

When it comes to KenGen, there have been corruption and nepotism allegations, especially related to their geothermal projects.
Even if it is profitable, an electricity generating company of that caliber can be doing much better.
You can't settle for mediocrity because you get a small profit at the end of the year.
We're looking to generate 5000 mw in the short term and ideas seem to be deficient at KenGen.
And I can say that the only reason KenGen appears like one of the better-run government companies is because it is also a public company. They have to release their financials and so on. If it was a 100% government-run company, we would be talking of a very different story.

For that 5th reason, they don't state what part of the budget it goes to finance. I would be more comfortable if it was the energy ministry or something related to electricity.