Gazetat — Albanian Newspaper Archive

PRIVATIZATION VOUCHERS MUST SERVE THE MASS OWNERSHIP OF ALBANIANS, NOT THEIR ROBBERY

BUT IT REQUIRES: - Full transparency - Reclassification of the economy - The emergence of corruption and the secret and open plundering of national wealth SOCIALISTS ALSO HAVE A STANCE ON THE PRESIDENT'S DECREE. IT LACKS: - A privatization strategy - Guarantees for the fight against corruption - A legal framework for full implementation - Security for preserving the value of the vouchers PRIVATIZATION VOUCHERS MUST SERVE THE MASS OWNERSHIP OF ALBANIANS, NOT THEIR ROBBERY The parliamentary group of the Socialist Party spoke unanimously in favor of continuing mass privatization BUT IT REQUIRES: - Full transparency - Reclassification of the economy - The emergence of corruption and the secret and open plundering of national wealth SOCIALISTS ALSO HAVE A STANCE ON THE PRESIDENT'S DECREE BECAUSE IT LACKS: - A privatization strategy - Guarantees for the fight against corruption - A legal framework for full implementation - Security for preserving the value of the vouchers THE PARLIAMENTARY GROUP OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY SEEMS TO HAVE LOST ITS HUMANIST HARMONY AND, IN LINE WITH ITS HUMANIST AND SOCIAL PROGRAM, PROPOSED THAT THESE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE ALSO BENEFIT FROM PRIVATIZATION THROUGH SECURITIES - Peasants without land and those who, under the law, do not have the right to privatize state housing and are still homeless - Older people, for the benefit of the vouchers, and the remaining wealth and contribution of every Albanian The Socialist Group also proposed that from voucher-based privatization some people should not benefit, because in previous privatization they have unjustly obtained large amounts of wealth FOR ALL THESE PROPOSALS OF THE SOCIALISTS, THE PD PARLIAMENTARY GROUP VOTED AGAINST! The SP is in favor of privatization, but against a privatization without criteria and without clear visions - Speech by deputy SHEKOLI CANI on behalf of the parliamentary group of the Socialist Party - At yesterday's session of the People's Assembly, the draft law on the privatization of enterprises with state capital was also discussed. On behalf of the parliamentary group of the Socialist Party, deputy Shekoli Cani spoke. In his speech he presented the alternative of the Socialist parliamentary group for mass privatization. Below we reproduce this speech in full: Further on, Shekoli Cani, supporting mass privatization as an immediate issue, as a matter at its humanitarian core, right and necessary to be resolved. What are the reasons that make privatization necessary? For two reasons. First, agriculture must be decollectivized, and the right to ownership and use of land must also come to an end. So it is an obligation under the constitution, under economic reforms and under conscience, and anyone opposed to this obligation is against it. Do you know, on a legal basis, who owns the land? It concerns 29 agricultural [?] under Law 7501. Furthermore, land ownership has come to an end. It has been distributed as the law determined, and now there is no humanitarian, social or economic issue that would justify recreating a new ownership based on voucher privatization. Second, unprivatized national wealth is an object of waste, plunder and corruption. By not privatizing the vouchers, this does not include the secret and open plundering of national wealth. The emergence of corruption. According to official and unofficial statistics, the informal economy today accounts for 65 percent of the country's monetary circulation and 40 percent of national production. So far, a significant part of this economy goes into investments in enterprises through vouchers, surpassing honest decision-making. What is this? If mass privatization tolerates voucher speculation, this government will turn speculators into entrepreneurs, making them economically stronger and politically more dangerous. Such a privatization, which would lead to the concentration of ownership and reproduce the old elite under the conditions of the new capitalism, is not popular privatization. On the contrary, it is privatization for a minority and to the detriment of the majority. If most strategic enterprises were privatized through vouchers, without first establishing strong control rules, without guaranteeing transparency and without protecting the interests of the public, then the state would lose the opportunity to guide the country's economic and social development. Therefore we call for a clear privatization strategy, legal guarantees against corruption, a legal framework for full implementation and security for preserving the value of the vouchers. (To be continued on page 3)

Concerns of Socialist deputies

Concerns of Socialist deputies The inclusion of questions in the parliamentary debate session on privatization vouchers On what basis was mass privatization translated? Who will have the influence? What will be done with the land? What privatization will be done with the rents? Are the legal grounds for dealing with securities also in place now? They have been distributed as the law determined, and now there is no humanitarian, social or economic issue that would justify opposing this obligation. The state has an asset that must and should make the economy socialized [?] if it is an obligation, the enterprises that are to be privatized and the quotas will have to be set up. What criteria will we preserve? What centralization will I have? Is this privatization with vouchers, or with a clear strategy? What control measures are needed? Is there a legal framework? Is there a fiscal and legal network to protect the value of the vouchers? What will the ordinary citizen gain? If privatization is carried out without rules, without transparency and without controls, speculators will take control of enterprises, while the majority of citizens will remain spectators. That would be injustice and a distortion of the process. What will happen to the vouchers of the enterprises that will be privatized? (To be continued on page 2)

No to taxes on the house

No to taxes on the house READ ON PAGE 2

On behalf of the government: SHEKOLI AND SHKO Z VIRONI RESPONDS

On behalf of the government: RESPONDS SHEKOLI AND SHKO Z VIRONI - P.S. Petrit Sinolli? is an economics specialist. I consider this to be a deep analysis and a valuable critique of the privatization project. Mr. Sinolli, while appreciating your speech, I am going to ask you a few questions that may help you clarify it further. Does privatization with privatization securities belong to rapid or gradual privatization[?]? It is not clear whether this type of privatization is part of an overall strategy or is being used as a temporary solution. B) You said that housing should also be privatized for those who have not benefited from the law. This is a very sensitive issue. But how will a fair assessment be made? Will there be clear social and economic criteria? C) Privatization with vouchers cannot serve as a substitute for land ownership reform. The land has been defined by law and the right of use cannot be undermined by other schemes. What is the connection you make between these two processes? D) And the vouchers, what guarantees do they have? Will their value be preserved over time? Is there a mechanism to protect citizens from devaluation? (To be continued on page 3)