& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Clarification Needed
Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. while addressing a group of industrial workers from Tongi at her Sugandha office on Friday, said her government would retain ownership of profit-making industries. Reported by the state-owned Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (.BSS). the story did not cany any further elaboration. But given the subject matter in question — state-owned enterprises and what the government plans to do with them — the prime minister's comments have left a number of raised eyebrows among economic observers as well as tn private sector circles.
According to the government's Industrial Policy, announced recently by the Minister for Industry Shamsul Islam Khan, the new government is committed to privatisation of all state-owned enterprises except a handful of strategic Industries such as power, gas. the raftways, telephone and telegraph etc. But. in principle, the government is committed to large scale withdrawal from economic activities, and allow the growth of a fully-fledged free market economy. The impression was that, while it would not be difficult to privatise profit-making and efficiently-run concerns, certain reform programmes would have to be undertaken in industries that are chronically sick, in order to make them attractive to private sector investors who would naturally not like to be stuck with a white elephant. But there has not been any doubt in the public mind, so far. that de-nationalisation would be comprehensive and all-encompassing, either through tenders or through floating of shares in the stock market.
Naturally then, the prime minister's comments about retaining profit-earning industries have led to considerable degree of confusion. If the government will, in fact, retain control or outright ownership of any given number of Industry on the grounds of profitability, then are we to understand that the guidelines set out in the Industrial Policy have already been changed? In other words, will the government remain committed to its previously-stated policy of "total disinvestment". or will it now privatise only on a selective basis i.e. only those units costing the exchequer too much would be off loaded?
Answer to this question is important, because the private sector entrepreneur would naturally like to be clear about the extent and scope of the government's privatisation policy before drawing up his own investment plans. Such confusion could well cause uncertainty and hesitation in business circles that Is not only unnecessary, but could also be detrimental to the process of economic regeneration. There are few things an entrepreneur. local or foreign, likes better than clarity of government policy, which would allow him to predict future course of events with any degree of confidence, and thus be able to plan ahead.
While we would certainly hesitate to doubt that the government's Industrial Policy is meant for implementation, it would be of some relief If the government would clarify the prime minister's comments on Friday, and set the record straight on privatisation. At this critical moment in our development process, the authorities would certainly serve the country better if they concentrated on drawing up and implementing reform plans necessary to breathe life into our sick industries. Sustained recovery in the industrial sector is the urgent need of the hour, for which we need clear-cut policies to be carried through without creating confusion.