|
UTI committee gets it wrong
The Malegam committee appears to have forgotten that there are
three interested parties in the UTI imbroglio — the US-64 and
monthly (promised return) scheme (MIP) unit holders, the UTI,
and the government of India. The entire report focuses on the
need to distance the government from UTI’s various problems
without regard to the organisational characteristic of UTI,
upon which the unit holders rely. The issue of the loss of capital
of the US-64 and MIP scheme unit holders has not been addressed
at all. The committee also appears to have willingly accepted
the highly unjust limit of 3,000 units per unit holder that
UTI has proposed as part of it’s “liquidity and confidence building”
plan. No effort appears to have been made to take a legal view
on this threshold limit. How UTI can differentiate between unit
holders (small, medium or large) who have applied under the
same set of conditions? The committee is condoning the injustice
done to those unit holders of US-64 who hold in excess of 3,000
units. No thought appears to have been applied for MIP unit
holders whose capital is declining in value.
UTI had been running various schemes such as US-64, MIPs, close-ended
schemes, open-ended schemes, etc under different sets of conditions.
They need to be looked at from different perspectives. What
is the purpose of continuing UTI if it cannot service and support
its main bulk of unit holders ie US-64 and MIP unit holders?
Why attempt to reinvigorate a “failed” organisation which has
belied the hopes of millions? It’s better to shut down UTI and
systematically hand over its various schemes to interested mutual
funds, recover loans given to corporates along with interest
thereon, sell its equity holdings to interested parties and
dispose off the remaining assets.
— H J Tavaria, on e-mail
TV-savvy MPs
When television was introduced into Parliament, it was hoped
that by televising the proceedings some order would be restored
in the conduct of our MPs. However, the argument has turned
on its head and the introduction of TV proved counter-productive:
Proceedings have become more unruly, and the quantum of business
conducted has fallen. This is because the electronic media
feeds upon rowdyism which always has an element of sensationalism
in it. Other MPs feel that televised proceedings are a good
platform to display their prowess to their electorate. Thus
in a sense, TV is a tool that facilitates their continuity
for another term. Vocal performances have become a vehicle
to attain instant stardom and electoral success.
It is high time minimum educational standards are set for
MPs. No government job is available without certain minimum
educational standards, so why should it be any different for
an elected representative of the people? TV producers also
have to take moral responsibility and decide not to spotlight
the pandemonium in Parliament for the sake of TV ratings.
— Nalin Rai, on e-mail
Fine (by) SBI
It is annoying to read that the US has slapped a fine of $7.5
million on the State Bank of India’s New York branch. Who will
bear this fine? Obviously the taxpayers who have to feed an
incompetent flock of bank officials and politicians. It is time
the guilty bank officers and others responsible are made to
pay from their pockets and the fine is not debited to the exchequer.
A public interest litigation in court could be a good idea.
Seemingly, all nationalised banks have become a serious liability.
— B S Ganesh, on e-mail |
