Be honest about sale of Telikom, says INA
By KEVIN PAMBA
ANY attempt by Government to sell Telikom PNG or its subsidiary B Mobile, should be done openly and transparently because they are public companies that the people have the right to know about their future.
Institute of National Affairs director Paul Barker said this at the Madang chapter of the PNG Update seminar series held at Divine Word University on Tuesday.
Mr Barker also pointed out that while PNG is bogged down in the debate over the pros and cons of competition in the telecommunication sector with the arrival of mobile phone company Digicel, many countries around the world are reaping the fruits of competition manifold.
Mr Barker made the comments in response to the presentation ICT policy and law by University of PNG law lecturer Lois Stanley and in the light of the government’s recent back-flip and admittance to media speculations that it was in secret talks with an American company, GEMS, to sell B Mobile.
He said that the Pacific was the last region of the world to accept competition and PNG in turn is the last among the island countries to do so.
Mr Barker said the partial or complete sale of either Telikom or B Mobile is a public matter and any discussions about it must be done publicly and transparently.
Mr Barker said there is logic in partial or complete sale of Telikom or B Mobile and if it is pursued must be done openly.
He also said the government’s intention to split Telikom into two companies – Servco and Netco – through the new information and communication technology (ICT) policy was a proposition “unknown in the world”. The Servco would be responsible for service and Netco for network.
University of PNG law lecturer Lois Stanley, described the proposition as an undertaking to retain the monopoly of the incumbent.
“Telikom, through its operational separation model under the new policy, clearly shows that it is competing in order to prevent, restrict or limit the supply of goods or services, and by doing so, substantially lessen competition, which is unlawful according to section 52 of the Independent Consumer and Consumer and Competition (ICCC) Act,” said Ms Stanley in her paper on ICT policy and law published in the February edition of Pacific Economic Bulletin.
Nation Stories