PJ Patterson was the silent winner

Sunday, January 15, 2012

ON the night of the December 29 election I gather that one particular stalwart in the JLP found reason to drink more than his usual share of whisky as he remarked on seeing the counting, "What the hell is happening?!"

A few days before that, on Christmas Eve, I gather that PJ Patterson, former prime minister, PNP president, the man behind the scenes of the PNP's massive two to one seat wipeout of the JLP, and the young lawyer in 1972 who was also behind Michael Manley's big victory then, had been inviting various people to the PNP's victory celebration.

He had been, on December 24, predicting, not by the stars or by false or poorly done canvasses, that the PNP would be winning 40 seats. Very few others saw that.

I am pretty sure that the JLP has spent enough time getting over the devastation. It is time to get back to work and try to learn something from PJ Patterson.

Elections are won in the trenches. Not by men dressed in suits telling journalists how well they are doing. Way back in the mid-1990s I wrote that PJ Patterson does his best work in the tall grass where few can see him. He is best at the roots of the grass.

Something is radically wrong with a party which causes men like Chris Tufton and Bobby Montague to lose their seats. At one level is, of course, constituency representation and the reality that poorer constituents need an MP that they believe they have easy access to.

In retrospect, the JLP needed at the very least three more months. To some that could mean three more months of bleeding of seats. To others who believed that the party and the new leader needed the time to show his own mettle, those three months would have been needed to bring the JLP base back to normality.

All water under the bridge now. Does the JLP have its own PJ Patterson? I think not.

The famed knowledge of JLP stalwarts like Karl Samuda fizzled badly on December 29. I look forward to the JLP's honest assessment of the election debacle.

Focus on non-tourism foreign investments by the PNP Government needed

As this administration gets itself ready to utilise funds earmarked for 'infrastructural repairs', that is, part of the US$400-million borrowed from the Chinese, it will immediately need to move its focus on securing new overseas investments in Jamaica.

It seems that at some stage it will begin to dawn on us that getting Europeans to build more high-rise hotels on the north coast will be exploiting the 'sun, sea and sand' to its limit and that the viability of such investments will be pressed to the wall.

Minister Anthony Hylton will need to look at areas less subject to the vagaries of social interruption, and one such investment proposal that he has been made well aware of is Dr Lloyd Cole's dry dock at Jackson Bay and the numerous other linkages that come with it.

At last check Dr Cole had taken his proposal to the previous JLP administration. Chinese investors (along with one from Dubai) had indicated keen interest, but due to China's highly centralised and unique mix of communist ideology and state capitalism, the Chinese required a Jamaican Government stamp of approval before a pre-feasibility study could be effected.

Over 20 years ago, Dr Cole, a Jamaican medical doctor, conceptualised a plan that has the workable potential to take Jamaica's development curve out of the incrementalist approach that has kept our economy and too many of our people mired in a long season of barely peeping over the edge of subsistence living. His comprehensive plan for the construction of a major 'state-of-the-art' dry dock facility at Jackson Bay in Clarendon, capable of meeting the service needs of cruise ships, cargo ships, pleasure boats of all international marine categories and sizes has remained in a state of stillbirth for over 20 years. The plan, at all stages, needed direct government approvals and allocation of lands (secured).

Prior to the change of Government, Cole had met with the respective personnel in the JLP administration but although they saw merit, viability and the need to push with urgency, in the end it was all hot air and again indicative of how government and its stifling bureaucracy are stumbling blocks to development.

In pursuing foreign direct investments, we should never, of course, assume that the potential risk takers will be simply coming to Jamaica to place wads of cash in our island without doing their homework. One of the main areas of focus has to be the approach of our unions and their bosses, both of which need major reform. The second will be security, especially as it applies to wholesale extortion of the business and workers.

Writing in the Western Mirror, 95-year-old Musgrave Gold Medallist Hedley Jones recently stated, "We have elected a new Government chosen by less than half the voting population, while the whole population is expecting some sort of miraculous prosperity bonanza. All of that, as some professionals engage in the artifice of tax-dodging — the wealthy refuse or are reluctant to invest in a climate of uncertainty.

"We seem to be hoping for foreign investment in a country famous for labour union strikes called for the reinstatement of lazy-bone workers fired for sleeping on the job, or found in possession of ill-gotten goods, and worse, where employers are put under pressure to pay extorted blood money to illegal enforcers in order to operate businesses already straddled with the high costs of fuel, security, low labour productivity and stupid and onerous trade union practices and pressures.'

Both the PNP and the JLP have solid union bases, but at this time a good dose of reality needs to be handed out to unions which must cease seeing investors in businesses as cash cows, there to milk for the union bosses and the workers, too many of whom will be expecting the most for less.

The previous PNP administration did well in attracting Spanish investors in our tourism market. In its present dispensation it has to diversify that approach to health and eco-tourism and to many other areas outside of the tourism market.

Is Digicel treating its loyal customers fairly?

If there is one single word that one could use to describe a Digicel customer, that word would be loyal.

In a January 5 press release, Digicel stated that Jamaica would be benefiting from its acquisition of Claro. One key part of the press release stated, "The initiatives will see Jamaica benefiting from super-fast mobile technology through the introduction of islandwide 4G Mobile, lower cross-network calling rates and an intent to bring complimentary wireless access to primary and secondary schools and post offices in remote locations.

"As a result of the acquisition, Digicel will be investing a further US$30 million in the rollout of its 4G Mobile services — in addition to its existing investment of over US$1 billion in Jamaica — and once again be bringing the latest in innovation to mobile users.

"Based on HSPA+, 4G Mobile from Digicel is the next step in high speed mobile Internet with speeds of up to five times faster than the standard legacy 3G technology. Digicel will deliver islandwide coverage to over 80 per cent of the population and will enable customers to enjoy a better experience through faster access to files, the Internet and social media; more engagement and more excitement through faster communication, entertainment and information; and more choice with an even wider range of handsets.

"Further, Digicel has also reduced its cross-network rates, meaning that, effective 4th January for prepaid and 12th January for postpaid, customers will benefit from a JA$3.50 per minute peak rate reduction and a JA$2 per minute off-peak rate reduction on calls to the other network."

The question I need to ask (again) is, is Digicel, essentially a monopoly with close to two million Jamaican customers, giving its loyal customers the best deal it can give, or is it using its status to shut down LIME?

Let us examine the matter. One has to admit that Digicel has done a lot of things that are good for Jamaica. However, I believe the company is really reaching for the stars when it tries to position the Digi-Claro merger as being good for Jamaican consumers.

I am no economist, but as a consumer who has two phones — one Digicel, one LIME — I am hard pressed to figure out how I will benefit from less competition in the mobile market. When companies have to vie for customers' ever dwindling disposable income it keeps the companies on their toes.

But beyond that, it is the manner in which Digicel continues to charge for calls that is a very worrying concern. As I've stated in previous articles, the company continues to maintain a high cross-network charge (calling to other networks) despite the gratuitous $3.00 reduction announced recently — a proposition that when initially made months ago was dismissed out of hand as unimpressive by the then Government.

Previously it was $17.00, Now, $14.00 to call another network is still onerous — considering that Digicel charges its own customers $10.00 for calling each other.

LIME charges $8.00 to its own customers on its network and $12 to call Digicel. Based on discussions I have had, I think it is safe to say that LIME is prepared to go even lower with its cross-network rate, given the right conditions. You will remember that several years ago they had respective rates of $8.00 on their own network and $10.00 to Digicel. Digicel never even blinked.

But if the interest of the consumer is what Digicel really cares about, why is it seemingly unwilling to allow for a common cross-network rate? What could it be that is possibly standing in the way? Here, to my way of seeing it, are some of the immediate benefits that would redound to consumers:

* No need to carry more than one phone. Digicel must know that there are thousands of people on its network who have to call LIME numbers and it forces them to have to buy a second phone or spend money they don't have.

* Now, instead of Digicel's little jingle 'Your credit lasts longer', Digicel customers would know that their credit would last MUCH longer — no more high per-minute charge to call the LIME network.

* Given that call charges would be basically the same, both companies would now have to offer real value to retain their customer base. Call charges could go even lower.

* Customers no longer have to check to see which network they are calling — no price differential.

* Digicel customers would no longer be penalised for calling off the Digicel network.

Can Digicel please tell me what is wrong with that scenario?

The truth is that at this stage the "progressive" Digicel is behaving no different from the former Cable & Wireless that Digicel takes so much delight in criticising — some of which was deserved. But we are past all of that. This is now 2012.

And so I ask again: What is Digicel afraid of in allowing for a level playing field — after all, it says it has over 1.8 million loyal customers. Is Digicel afraid that with a flat cross-network charge, customers might find LIME's offerings more attractive?

Digicel has had a long run and has raked in super profits (the company boasts about it).

I say, fly the gate to a common cross-network charge and let the respective companies battle for the consumers' business. After all, in a truly competitive market the consumer is supposed to be king.

Digicel has too many loyal customers to be 'rewarding' them with retaining the high cross-network charges. The customer, who is king, deserves more.

observemark@gmail.com

Do you feel buying into Facebook now is a good investment for the long-run?
	Yes
	No

View Results
Results published weekly in Sunday Finance

Username:
Password:

GCT to go down, white rum prices going up

PJ Patterson was the silent winner