Speak to anxious citizens, PM

DR BHOENDRADATT TEWARIE

THE IMF will be happy about decisions and pending decisions by the Dr Keith Rowley government on Petrotrin. Standard and Poors and Moody’s will respond positively as well. And a lot of people who have felt for years that Petrotrin has been essentially a political football, an abused state enterprise and a feeding trough for patronage, would also be hoping to see a more business-like approach to the company.

Others who feel that the union leadership at Petrotrin has been belligerent, unreasonable and supporting under-productivity will also see it as a positive thing that Ancel Roget and company have been subdued.

But the implications of decisions already taken and the inevitable human cost of it are a source of real trauma for many. Seventeen hundred workers without jobs or income, the impact on families and communities cannot simply be treated as mere casualties of business decision-making.

A company can make a decision in the best interest of shareholders knowing that there will be fallout and not care because their first responsibility is to their shareholders. And even so, other stakeholders are often taken into account by companies in such situations because of a wider sense of corporate social responsibility.

Kenneth Galbraith, the noted Canadian economist, wrote a long time ago that it does not matter who owns an enterprise, whether it is the State or the private sector. Instead, he argued, what matters and matters profusely is whether the company is run according to business principles, which means to say, whether it pursues profitability and accounts to its shareholders, and whether or not there is political interference.

No state enterprise in Trinidad and Tobago has been run according to business principles, and Petrotrin is no exception. And there are no state enterprises in which political interference is not the norm. That has been and is our reality.

It is difficult, therefore, to separate board responsibility and political obligations in the case of Petrotrin, now so messy and so controversial.

Everyone knows that something has to be done with Petrotrin to make that company viable but no one wants to see social fallout on a massive scale with all its attendant human and social costs in a time of continuing recession and less than anticipated growth from the natural gas sector only, based on the new gas available since the end of 2017, likely to peak in 2019 and to continue until about 2021. The non-gas based sectors of the economy remain virtual dead zones.

Moreover the citizenry is aware that bad decisions sanctioned by the political directorate are partly responsible for the trouble that Petrotrin is in. The $850 million debt incurred by the Malcolm Jones board for the World GTL plant and the balloon payment due in 2019 are an integral part of the problem.

Restructuring of the debt has become an urgent necessity now but who will restructure the debt if Petrotrin itself is not restructured and unable to demonstrate that it can repay the debt? In addition, the Rowley government would not want to put a restructured Petrotrin debt on its books, so that Petrotrin would have to reconfigure the loan without a government guarantee. So action on Petrotrin the company must precede viable negotiations on the debt restructuring. That is the Malcolm Jones legacy to Trinidad and Tobago, sanctioned by the Patrick Manning administration, with a decision not to pursue legal action against him by the Rowley administration.

Notwithstanding all of the above, certain things remain curious.

Why was it necessary to drop this on Petrotrin workers and on the country at large on the eve of independence 2018?

Secondly, an assurance was given by Petrotrin chairman Wilfred Espinet that the refinery will not be sold. Does that mean now or never?

I find it difficult to reconcile previous decisions to upgrade the refinery with money expended for that purpose with a decision to mothball the refinery and to turn it into scrap iron. So we need some elaboration and explanation here.

I find the restraint of Roget out of character, even if welcome and I am anxious to see how the evolving scenario plays out and how the interest of workers will be secured. In fixing the company problem, the workers cannot just be expendable.

I find it curious also that Rowley would want to wait until Sunday, with a board announcement made on Tuesday which fired 1700 workers with one fell swoop and which has already fuelled general uncertainty and uneasiness, to address the nation on this troubling matter. Why wait until Sunday?

Perhaps on Sunday he will transparently reveal what will happen to Petrotrin in the various phases; how such developments fit into an energy plan going forward; what we signed with Venezuela and what it really means to whom; how the negotiations are going with the oil companies to facilitate new drilling; where we are on transfer pricing discussions with the relevant companies, and where NiQuan and Sinopec fit into the bigger picture. Perhaps he may wish to indicate what the implications are for other state enterprises that are not performing optimally.

If the Prime Minister is good enough to share his government’s thinking and decisions on these issues with citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, perhaps then we may be able to see more clearly what is in store for the workers, for citizens, for Petrotrin, for the energy sector and for Trinidad and Tobago. Perhaps precision from Rowley will reduce speculation and relieve the population of its numbness and worry about where the economy is headed.

So we wait to see what turn we will take as a country after 56 years of independence. We wait anxiously.

caption

Dr Bhoendradatt Tewarie