|
Friday,
August 17,
2007, #157 (1424)
"The country's
assets can do better in private hands, I suppose, but I don't get why
the government needs to sell absolutely everything. Investors will do
whatever they want on our own territory, and soon we'll be foreigners
in our own country." "I don't care
who owns it, as long as the asset is well-managed. So, if this British
company can improve the railway, I'm all for the sale." "I'm completely
against this. A strategic object like the railway must not be privatized-it
can end up in the wrong hands." "Well, if
we can't manage our own property then it should be privatized. But the
government should be careful about who it gives management rights to." "No problem
here. If the company can do a good job managing the railway, then it's
a good move. Of course the government needs to think about who it's
handing assets over to, but as long as the company is serious I don't
see any issues." "I'd like
to know what other countries are doing. If lots of other states are
privatizing their strategic assets, then I think it's appropriate, but
if Georgia is one of just a few countries doing this, then the government
should think twice." "I think it
doesn't matter what I think-the government will do whatever it wants,
whether we like it or not." "I don't think
we should make a fuss about it and come down hard on either side. Time
will show if this was a right or wrong move. I can't just categorically
say whether it's good or bad." |
Saakashvili's
administration is pushing a sweeping privatization of Georgian state
assets. Yesterday it was announced that Georgian Railways had its management
rights handed over to a British company for the next 89 years. Are state
assets better or worse off in private hands?