Some people are laughing at the conspiracy theory which links the new draft law for asset management to the next presidential elections in 2010-2011. "It doesn't make sense, they say everything's got to do with the bequeathal" I was told. I do not blame those who came up with this theory. However, this is not due to the fact that I believe that everything really has to do with the bequeathal, but to the fact that there is only one logic or economic explanation for this draft law. The National Democratic Party (NDP) and the government are looking for a popular draft law to keep in touch with the people after all previous projects have failed. Indeed, this program will start being implemented very close to the 2010 legislative elections. The NDP has the right to look for means to become popular, stay alive and keep in touch with and get closer to the people. We would very much welcome this if these means were real and sincere and would bring benefits to both parties, namely the people and the NDP. Instead, this draft law is only a signboard with more disadvantages than advantages and this is what we object to. The first board talks about expanding the ownership basis. However, is this really useful? We are talking about a group of companies that the government has been unable to sell for political or economic reasons or that have not been put on sale because the State did not know whether offers would be made for them. Eventually, the idea was to get rid of them by giving them to the poor. The government says we will be partners. If this is the case, why are we not partners in profitable companies, namely public companies and state shares, in joint ventures and oil companies? What are the companies that the State will put on sale later on, namely the most profitable ones? Why does the State just share the leftovers with us? What is the use of expanding ownership here? Dr. Mahmoud Mohieldin talks about the advantages of transparency, governance and the sale of Egypt Telecom. With regard to Egypt Telecom, he is talking about a profitable and monopolist company, 20% of which has been sold by the State. By doing so, the ownership base was really enlarged. However, let us not forget that this sale was made because Egypt had committed to liberalize the telecommunications sector at the international level, something we could not avoid. Therefore, the state was forced to do so. Which companies are like Egypt Telecom? If there are companies about which the state boasts as part of the free portfolio (such as steel, iron, sugar and aluminum), why has the state never thought about making them available in the stock exchange? Some shares of aluminum are indeed in the bourse, but in too small a quantity. Who cares about keeping some shares in these companies with the same governmental management, the same number of workers, the same problems and the same few shares on the market? Any aware investor or citizen will realize that it is better to get rid of this title-deed now before its value deteriorates. This is exactly what will happen not only because the Egyptians are ignorant – only 1,5 million Egyptians make transitions in the bourse – but because they are poor and need that money and indeed much lesser than that. What is the point in expanding ownership with a minority that cannot change the management, unveil corruption or inject investments? If the State has good intentions, why does it not improve the conditions of those companies before distributing them to the people? The State has realized that it owns a group of companies that it does not know how to get rid of. It also wants to put an end to this chronic privatization headache and its problems. Therefore, it is killing two birds with one stone. This time, though, the stone is the normal people under the pretext of expanding the ownership base. Any kind of partnership is based on consensus among the partners and all the parties must know all the details of the partnership contract. Unfortunately, these title-deeds are not enough to make people feel they are partners in this country. The State has chosen to share with us the leftovers and its failures. As for success stories, let us see if there is anything left for us in the state budget.
