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

[petro matei]

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

Kojoa ulale.

Uchumi haupimwi kwa thamani ya fedha check Japan Pesa yao iko chini ila uchumi wao ni hatari

 

[pilato93]

Ya Zambia nayaona Kenya soon

 

[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.

Worst thing about privatisation is the job losses that will never come back. Secondly if your argument is that we should privatise to ensure that a company makes profit then why should we privatise a public company that is already making alot of profit? For example Kenya ports has never made a loss in the last 15 years or so, why in the hell should we privatise Kenya ports? Where do you expect those more than 4,000 employees to go? A private company will sack more than half of them with the lame excuse of trying to increase efficiency. Soma hii Guardian article as reference:
Privatisation: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Privatisation: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Privatisation has been an area of contention since Thatcher, and its impact on many UK communities is still being felt today
Henry Kirby

Fri 12 Apr 2013 20.49 BST First published on Fri 12 Apr 2013 20.49 BST
Shares
59
Privatisation: the good, the bad, and the ugly
For opponents of privatisation, the most damaging legacy has been job losses. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP
The good
Although many of the now-privatised companies are part or fully owned by foreign companies, they have proved to be lucrative investments and were once the means by which Margaret Thatcher aimed to create a nation of shareholders.

In 1986, when British Gas was floated on the stock exchange, shares cost 135p each, or 334p in today's terms. Since then, British Gas has undergone several organisational changes and the resulting organisation, BG Group plc, is worth £11.09 a share. A £100 investment in 1986 would have gone up by £821.


Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Some privatisations have brought improvements for consumers. According to the water and sewerage regulator Ofwat, since the privatisation of the 10 state-owned regional water authorities in 1989, the number of customers at risk of low water pressure has fallen by 99%.

Those critical of state-run services often cite the six-month wait for the installation of a new BT line that customers allegedly suffered before telecommunications were privatised. New BT lines are today installed within 15 days, according to BT's website.

The bad
Advertisement

Many would say the standout failure of privatisation was that of British Rail. While the actual process did not take place until after Thatcher had left office, she was known to be discussing it with the then Department of Transport months before her resignation. At the 1990 Tory party conference, a month before she left office, her then transport secretary, Cecil Parkinson, said: "The question now is not about whether we should privatise it [British Rail], but how and when."

Since the privatisation the amount of government subsidies to the rail industry has risen higher than it was in its state-run days. A yearly average of just over £1bn in the late 1980s rose to a high of more than £6bn in 2006-2007, according to a public spending report from the House of Commons.

In 2011, the then Conservative transport secretary, Philip Hammond, alluded to the sharp rise in ticket prices since privatisation when he described train travel in the UK as "a rich man's toy". Five years earlier, economists at UBS bank said train travel in the UK was the most expensive in the world.

… and the ugly
For opponents of privatisation, the most damaging legacy has been job losses. In the decade after the miners' strike of 1985, more than 200,000 jobs were lost as a result of coal privatisation, as well as creating the largest British industrial conflict of modern times.

Since privatisation, more than 100,000 jobs have been lost at BT, while the restructuring of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) – the result of an industry being left increasingly to its own devices by the government – led to the loss of 15,000 jobs in Teesside.

The government's laissez-faire approach to the changes, and the resultant sudden, mass unemployment led to the transformation of what was once a region booming from steel industry to one of the most impoverished in the country. By the time it was privatised in 1988, British Steel had shed 20,000 jobs.

Supporters of privatisation would reflect upon it as a move that was necessary in order to adapt to increasing international competition, yet its impact on many communities within the UK is still felt today.

 

[kennedy0000]

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

Privatization is not 100% positive. I know there are concerns, but in our case the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Plus dynamics are different. For example.

In the UK, they are complaining of services getting worse. That's because they were already used to top services from their government. Here in Kenya its the other way round and you rarely get services on time without parting with a bribe.

Yes, privatization may increase the prices of some services. But only to market rates. A country cannot grow on welfare mentality.

For a country coming from already functioning institutions, they may fear privatization. That's not something we can say here in Kenya.

 

[kennedy0000]

For example Kenya ports has never made a loss in the last 15 years or so, why in the hell should we privatise Kenya ports? Where do you expect those more than 4,000 employees to go?

I'm sure I don't need to mention the many news articles telling us how cargo has been delayed, lost etc. How businessmen are running to Dar port. How people are evading tax at the port.

What is to say that an efficiently running port will not double the profit and double the tax collected?

Leave it to the government to run and what do we see, characters like Mungatana are appointed KPA boss.
The truth is no matter how well meaning a president is, there will always be political baggage. As a result he will reward political loyalty with such posts.

 

[kennedy0000]

Worst thing about privatisation is the job losses that will never come back.

Like I told someone here.
You can fire 1000 to increase efficiency, and create 10,000 indirect jobs as a result.
The moment things start moving, the economy starts moving and totally unrelated jobs start popping up.

What we can't do is use the excuse of jobs to entertain mediocrity.

 

[kennedy0000]

Uchumi haupimwi kwa thamani ya fedha check Japan Pesa yao iko chini ila uchumi wao ni hatariView attachment 925963View attachment 925964

Uchumi umeingilia wapi?
We were talking about currency.

Mtu alisema hapa kwamba currency ya Kenya sio strong, nami nikamuonyesha nguvu yake.

Wewe nawe umeongeza Japan, proving my point kwamba currency ya Kenya ni strong.

 

[stephot]

Wajinga sana hii mijitu, acha isote waya walahi

Kama wamekwama sana kwanini wasiombe hata maarifa kutoka TZ..?

 

[Mkikuyu- Akili timamu]

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.

Boss, You are engaging in fantasy and whataboutism. The profitability problem affecting Both private and public companies is Management issues and Market dynamics or deliberate market distortions like dumping 3 year worth of sugar to kenya.
I have seen well run private companies fail as well as public companies..
Nokia was a strong private company, but as its management failed to innovate.They had to bite the dust.
This propaganda that private companies are well run and Gvts should privitise parastatals is not supported by facts..Actually more privite companies go bankrupt than public companies
Wait until the capital holders(Indians) get a piece of KPA or KPC they will do a nakumatt on you..Panpaper was cheaply acquired by Rai and already he has converted it into an illigal sugar warehouse instead of milling paper products
God forbid if kamlesh types control kengen!
As I said, This will end in Tears

 

[joto la jiwe]

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.

Bado upo katika theoretical thinking kuliko reality, kati ya Kenya na Tanzania ipi private sector ipo strong zaidi?, jibu ni Kenya ipo na many private companies and industries, but the more private Spector becomes strong in Kenya, the higher unemployment rate. Opposite is true for Tanzania, the more government owned/shared, the lesser unemployment rate. Remember in nearly all developing economies, the governments are the biggest employers. Unless you want to remain in a failed States list.

 

[kennedy0000]

Boss, You are engaging in fantasy and whataboutism. The profitability problem affecting Both private and public companies is Management issues and Market dynamics or deliberate market distortions like dumping 3 year worth of sugar to kenya.
I have seen well run private companies fail as well as public companies..
Nokia was a strong private company, but as its management failed to innovate.They had to bite the dust.
This propaganda that private companies are well run and Gvts should privitise parastatals is not supported by facts..Actually more privite companies go bankrupt than public companies
Wait until the capital holders(Indians) get a piece of KPA or KPC they will do a nakumatt on you..Panpaper was cheaply acquired by Rai and already he has converted it into an illigal sugar warehouse instead of milling paper products

You want facts.

Kenyan banks majority controlled by the government:
National Bank
Consolidated Bank
Development Bank

Two of them were very vibrant banks some time back. Now they are on the verge of collapse.
So many private banks have come in after them and taken off.

Media
KBC
Owes billions in debt. Overtaken by virtually all other media houses.

Others

Kenya Meat Commission - Always facing bankruptcy fears. Cannot even compete with the likes of Farmers Choice.
Stopped innovating and exploring new ideas decades ago.

Kenya Pipeline - Recent news headline: Detectives probe possible loss of Sh70 billion at Kenya Pipeline

Postal Corporation - Only its funeral remains. Even in an age of online shopping, they have failed to take advantage of the logistics part.

Utalii College and Hotel - Once a vibrant conference destination, now it looks like a ghost hotel.

The list is long.

 

[kennedy0000]

Nokia was a strong private company, but as its management failed to innovate.They had to bite the dust.
This propaganda that private companies are well run and Gvts should privitise parastatals is not supported by facts..Actually more privite companies go bankrupt than public companies

More private companies go bankrupt because there are more private companies than government companies.

And going bankrupt is not the worst that could happen. In fact government companies are less likely to go bankrupt because the government will keep pumping in tax payers money for the optics. Companies like KBC are still hanging on but accomplishing nothing. They just consume government money.

You almost never see any innovative product coming from a government owned company. You'll never see them doing aggressive expansion.

 

[joto la jiwe]

Worst thing about privatisation is the job losses that will never come back. Secondly if your argument is that we should privatise to ensure that a company makes profit then why should we privatise a public company that is already making alot of profit? For example Kenya ports has never made a loss in the last 15 years or so, why in the hell should we privatise Kenya ports? Where do you expect those more than 4,000 employees to go? A private company will sack more than half of them with the lame excuse of trying to increase efficiency. Soma hii Guardian article as reference:
Privatisation: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Privatisation: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Privatisation has been an area of contention since Thatcher, and its impact on many UK communities is still being felt today
Henry Kirby

Fri 12 Apr 2013 20.49 BST First published on Fri 12 Apr 2013 20.49 BST
Shares
59
Privatisation: the good, the bad, and the ugly
For opponents of privatisation, the most damaging legacy has been job losses. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP
The good
Although many of the now-privatised companies are part or fully owned by foreign companies, they have proved to be lucrative investments and were once the means by which Margaret Thatcher aimed to create a nation of shareholders.

In 1986, when British Gas was floated on the stock exchange, shares cost 135p each, or 334p in today's terms. Since then, British Gas has undergone several organisational changes and the resulting organisation, BG Group plc, is worth £11.09 a share. A £100 investment in 1986 would have gone up by £821.


Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Some privatisations have brought improvements for consumers. According to the water and sewerage regulator Ofwat, since the privatisation of the 10 state-owned regional water authorities in 1989, the number of customers at risk of low water pressure has fallen by 99%.

Those critical of state-run services often cite the six-month wait for the installation of a new BT line that customers allegedly suffered before telecommunications were privatised. New BT lines are today installed within 15 days, according to BT's website.

The bad
Advertisement

Many would say the standout failure of privatisation was that of British Rail. While the actual process did not take place until after Thatcher had left office, she was known to be discussing it with the then Department of Transport months before her resignation. At the 1990 Tory party conference, a month before she left office, her then transport secretary, Cecil Parkinson, said: "The question now is not about whether we should privatise it [British Rail], but how and when."

Since the privatisation the amount of government subsidies to the rail industry has risen higher than it was in its state-run days. A yearly average of just over £1bn in the late 1980s rose to a high of more than £6bn in 2006-2007, according to a public spending report from the House of Commons.

In 2011, the then Conservative transport secretary, Philip Hammond, alluded to the sharp rise in ticket prices since privatisation when he described train travel in the UK as "a rich man's toy". Five years earlier, economists at UBS bank said train travel in the UK was the most expensive in the world.

… and the ugly
For opponents of privatisation, the most damaging legacy has been job losses. In the decade after the miners' strike of 1985, more than 200,000 jobs were lost as a result of coal privatisation, as well as creating the largest British industrial conflict of modern times.

Since privatisation, more than 100,000 jobs have been lost at BT, while the restructuring of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) – the result of an industry being left increasingly to its own devices by the government – led to the loss of 15,000 jobs in Teesside.

The government's laissez-faire approach to the changes, and the resultant sudden, mass unemployment led to the transformation of what was once a region booming from steel industry to one of the most impoverished in the country. By the time it was privatised in 1988, British Steel had shed 20,000 jobs.

Supporters of privatisation would reflect upon it as a move that was necessary in order to adapt to increasing international competition, yet its impact on many communities within the UK is still felt today.

Huyu jamaa anajua ukweli lakini hataki kuonekana ameshindwa na Tanzania. Nimemuambia Tanzania tulibinafsisha kila kitu kipindi cha Mkapa tukabakisha chupi zetu pekee, yaliyotukuta tulijuta sana na kusaga meno, sasa hivi tunarudisha mashirika yote tuliyoyauza ambayo hayakufanya vizuri, tuligundua makosa na tumerekebisha.

Sasa hivi chini ya uongozi wa uncle Magufuli, hamuangalii mtu kwa huruma, mashirika karibu yote yanafanya vizuri sana na yanatoa dividend kwa serikali, kwanini msije kujifunza makosa tuliyofanya badala yake mnafanya kivyenu tu?.

 

[kennedy0000]

Bado upo katika theoretical thinking kuliko reality, kati ya Kenya na Tanzania ipi private sector ipo strong zaidi?, jibu ni Kenya ipo na many private companies and industries, but the more private Spector becomes strong in Kenya, the higher unemployment rate. Opposite is true for Tanzania, the more government owned/shared, the lesser unemployment rate. Remember in nearly all developing economies, the governments are the biggest employers. Unless you want to remain in a failed States list.

Wacha nikwambie. The day you Tanzania stop counting wauza njugu and wachoma mahindi as employed, your unemployment figures will rise to 70%.

Here in Kenya, the numbers you get are for those in formal or some kind of verifiable informal employment.
Lakini the truth is, and I would bet on this, a bigger percentage of Kenyans than Tanzanians make a livable income one way or another.

 

[joto la jiwe]

I'm sure I don't need to mention the many news articles telling us how cargo has been delayed, lost etc. How businessmen are running to Dar port. How people are evading tax at the port.

What is to say that an efficiently running port will not double the profit and double the tax collected?

Leave it to the government to run and what do we see, characters like Mungatana are appointed KPA boss.
The truth is no matter how well meaning a president is, there will always be political baggage. As a result he will reward political loyalty with such posts.

Unaona unavyojichanganya, unasema how businesses are running to Dar port, is Dar port privatized?, why then businesses to run to Dar port which is public institution?

 

[Mkikuyu- Akili timamu]

You want facts.

Kenyan banks majority controlled by the government:
National Bank
Consolidated Bank
Development Bank

Two of them were very vibrant banks some time back. Now they are on the verge of collapse.
So many private banks have come in after them and taken off.

Media
KBC
Owes billions in debt. Overtaken by virtually all other media houses.

Others

Kenya Meat Commission - Always facing bankruptcy fears. Cannot even compete with the likes of Farmers Choice.
Stopped innovating and exploring new ideas decades ago.

Kenya Pipeline - Recent news headline: Detectives probe possible loss of Sh70 billion at Kenya Pipeline

Postal Corporation - Only its funeral remains. Even in an age of online shopping, they have failed to take advantage of the logistics part.

Utalii College and Hotel - Once a vibrant conference destination, now it looks like a ghost hotel.

The list is long.

Shameless cherry picking.. 46pc of SMEs fail in the first year in kenya and many more after the 3rd year - those are thousands in numbers 46pc of Kenya's SMEs close within a year of founding - Capital Business
As I said, the problem with profitability is Management issues and Market dynamics
These parastatals you have listed here have a similiar problem..They are run by incompetent political appointees. Fix That and the companies will rake in tidy profits and remit healthy divided to GoK simple.
Should safaricom's managent be replaced by Ruto's illitrate relatives, it would be rife with corruption like KPC.
Privitisation is a form of "escapism" where you dont want to address the real problem and instead find a bogie man to blame -The govenment shareholding

 

[Mkikuyu- Akili timamu]

Unaona unavyojichanganya, unasema how businesses are running to Dar port, is Dar port privatized?, why then businesses to run to Dar port which is public institution?

They Guy has no grasp of anything..I think he is here just to argue

 

[eliakeem]

😂

Kulikoni???

 

[ISIS]

HILI LIKUNYA NI KWISHNEY WALAHI

 

[ISIS]

HILI LIKUNYA NI KWISHNEY WALAHI