The State’s business is no business at all

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

We can’t judge a book by its cover, but in the Sri Lankan Presidential Election, we can certainly gauge many people’s futures based on what is said about State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reforms.

The simple truth is that we can only progress with SOE reforms. These reforms are rare and even mentioning them on a political stage requires courage. However, the fact remains that there is no future without SOE reforms.

Given the resistance by political leaders, this column is another attempt to reiterate why the State should not engage in business and how State involvement in business impacts all citizens.

Why should the State not do business?

The role of the State is not to do business but to ensure the rule of law. As the saying goes, “When you do something, you are not doing something else.” When the State engages in business, it neglects its primary duty – upholding the rule of law, which is its core mandate.

Another reason the State should not do business is that it has a unique way of participating in every business as a mandatory shareholder through the tax system. Every corporation is required to pay 30% of its profit to the State, which is essentially the Government’s share.

Additionally, businesses must pay an 18% tax based on their income. This means that the Government collects more than 50% of the profit value without doing anything. Since the Government is already collecting money from all businesses, there is no need for it to engage in business directly.

Why sell profit-making SOEs?

A common argument against privatisation is, ‘why sell profit-making SOEs?” The answer is that the State has no role in business, and even if these enterprises are making a profit, those profits must be evaluated against the value of the assets.

For instance, the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation has an asset base of about Rs. 500 million, but its annual profit is only around Rs. 14 million. This translates to roughly Rs. 1 million per month. Does it make sense to run a business that generates just Rs. 1 million in profit after tying up resources worth Rs. 500 million?

If we had Rs. 500 million, even the safest investment, such as a fixed deposit at a 6% interest rate, would yield about Rs. 30 million per year, which is more than double the profit of the Cashew Corporation. Just because an enterprise is making a profit doesn’t justify the State continuing to run it if we can’t maximise the return on those assets.

What about the SOEs of Vietnam and South Korea?

Like Sri Lanka, both South Korea and Vietnam had significant SOEs in the 1960s due to limited private capital. As private capital slowly developed, both countries began reforming their SOEs. These reforms included privatisations and gradual government withdrawal through corporatisation.

In Vietnam, there were about 5,600 SOEs in 2001, which was reduced to 3,200 by 2010 through various reform packages under the Doi Moi reforms. By 2016, the number of SOEs had further decreased to 2,600, thanks to reforms including Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and corporatisation.

Vietcombank, which was a 100% State-owned bank, was listed on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange as part of a pilot project in 1990. The State’s ownership was reduced by 75%, with 15% of the shares sold to Japan’s Mizuho Bank. Similarly, Petrolimex, a petroleum company in Vietnam, sold 9% of its shares to JX Nippon Oil & Energy on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange.

In South Korea, Korea Telecom (KT) was fully privatised by listing it on the Korean Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange, and London Stock Exchange. The Korea Electric Power Corporation was also opened to private investors by listing on the Korean Stock Exchange in 1989 and the New York Stock Exchange in 1999. Other companies, like Pohang Iron and Steel Company, Korea Exchange Bank, and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng Corporation, also underwent reforms to allow private sector participation.

Vietnam attracted Nokia as a key investor for economic growth, while South Korea grew with Samsung and other electronics companies. If Sri Lanka wants to progress, we need to bring in world-class operators that can run these enterprises efficiently, rather than have the Government manage them.

Benefits of SOE reforms

SOE reforms offer a package of four solutions to our problems.

First, they boost Government revenue, as efficiently-run companies will generate higher profits, allowing the Government to increase its revenue.

Second, SOEs have significantly contributed to our sovereign debt, and reforming them can help reduce the national debt.

Third, Sri Lanka requires Foreign Direct Investment, and SOE reforms can serve as a channel to attract such investments.

Fourth, SOE reforms can help cut down Government expenditure, as these enterprises currently contribute to massive Government losses.

SOE reforms require political will because incorporating them into a manifesto is unlikely to attract votes; in fact, it may deter traditional voters. However, the moment of truth will come, and ultimately, we all have to face it – it’s just a matter of time.