|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
analysis firstperson How
much has really changed? tax
reforms They
need our help, now development Access
denied Now
fake fertilizers
Gray areas remain It is time parliament and the executive took a pragmatic view of the situation without compromising on the separation of powers By Raza Rumi The short and interim order has disappointed many
quarters that had been lobbying for a grand showdown between the judiciary
and the parliament. Institutional conflicts could engineer systemic
breakdowns. However, the apex court has avoided the route of appeasing its
core constituency -- the activist lawyers and bars -- who for some odd
reasons have been arguing for a governance paradigm, which locates
judicial dominance at its centre. Pakistan's quest for parliamentary
democracy has sought representative rule and no unelected institution,
howsoever effective or popular, can appropriate that space. The interim
order on the petitions challenging the 18th Amendment to the Constitution
has tacitly acknowledged this reality. The bone of contention in this saga has been the insertion of Article 175-A which revised the mode of appointments in the superior courts by introducing two broad based fora -- a Judicial Commission and a Parliamentary Committee -- to make the process of appointing judges inclusive, less discretionary and transparent. Several other new clauses were also challenged but Article 175-A was the subject of much debate and discussion as a few purists from the lawyers' movement deemed it to be against the Independence of the judiciary as enshrined in the Constitution. The decision also comes in the wake of an ongoing crisis comprising judiciary-executive collision on a number of issues. In the past two years, for right or wrong reasons, almost everything of import from the executive has been challenged in the courts, thereby creating a duality of evil versus the good in terms of decision-making. Let it be clear that this is not the reality perhaps. It is a perception carefully crafted by the media and sections of the opposition who have strategized to use legality and judicial activism as mechanisms to settle scores with the ruling party and by extension the coalition. The court has, by and large, acted with judicial propriety and has avoided the brinkmanship suggested in TV talk shows and belligerent political statements. However, the four-month long hearing of the petitions against the 18th Amendment and the time that the Court took in announcing the interim order raised concerns in the national discourse. The powers of the court to strike down or amend constitutional provisions were discussed threadbare sometimes in an informed manner but most of the times in a partisan and political manner. Similarly, the obiter dicta on an undefined and unsettled issue of the basic structure of Pakistan's all-weather Constitution were not encouraging. Now that the order is out, it is essential to review
what are the implications for the thorny issues of constitutionalism,
political stability and rule of law in the country. The 18-page long order
exclusively discussed Article 175A on the appointment of judges. The
Supreme Court's direction in effect states that the judicial appointment
process under the new Article 175A should resemble old process even when
filtered through the Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee.
In the previous mode of appointments, the chief justices of the Supreme
Court and the high courts were the decision makers, and their nominations
could not be ignored by the prime minister/president without giving
reasons. Through the new order, the judiciary has jealously guarded its powers to appoint judges, which in a way defeats the purpose of the new method of appointment, which called for a broad-based selection process, and the involvement of the parliament given the international best practices devised by democracies. After the judgment, the names of potential candidates will be 'initiated' by the chief justices, while the Chief Justice of Pakistan would 'regulate' the meetings and affairs of the Judicial Commission. Intriguingly, the Parliamentary Committee will hold its proceedings in camera and, if a candidate forwarded by the Judicial Commission is rejected, the Parliamentary Committee will have to register its reasons (justiciable by the SC) for not doing so. Critics have called this putting old wine in new bottles and a dilution of the spirit of Article 175A approved through consensus in the parliament. The matter has been referred back to the parliament which by itself is an extraordinary a step as there is no explicit or implicit power of the court to tell the parliament what to do. More questions than answers: It remains unclear if the other clauses challenged in over two-dozen petitions have been settled or not. Thus the gray area remains. This implies that the unclear fate of the new Articles will evoke partisan criticism and as some commentators have suggested keep the Damocles' Sword over the parliament. The larger implication will be that the legitimacy of the 18th Amendment as a duly deliberated and passed constitutional change will be called into question, thereby diminishing the central concept of political transformation and decentralisation from the federation to the provinces. Separation of powers: There is a settled legal doctrine in our Constitution. The organs of the state have clear mandates and jurisdictions. Legal experts have pointed out that referring a matter to the parliament -- the originator of the Constitution -- by the Judiciary is akin to overstepping its mandate. True that the court has the power to review constitutional amendments and interpret them but it does not have any inherent power to amend the Constitution. The directives to the parliament in how it should operationalise its scheme are unprecedented. The working of a Parliamentary Committee is the exclusive mandate of the parliament and in any case the rules of business for the committee for appointing judges had to be devised. By telling the elected representatives what to do, the conventions on parliamentary democracy are challenged. Transparency in governance? The insistence to hold in-camera proceedings of the parliamentary committee negates the principle of transparency, which is central to the concept of good governance. Why should the public not be made aware of the deliberations of their representatives about who would sit on judgment at the taxpayers' expense and whether the appointees are fully qualified or not? In several jurisdictions (let's not talk about India here when it suits our biases) parliaments are getting greater role in selection of judges. The fear of semi-literate MNAs (often with fake degrees) judging the judges-to-be is pointless. If this were the case, we should discard democracy as the Generals have continued to do so in our history. Minimizing discretionary powers: Whether it is the executive or the judiciary, discretion leads to sub-optimal decisions. Absolute powers in the hands of the Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and others are at variance with the concept of inclusive governance. Thus, the widening of the decision-making process through commissions and opinions of a wide range of stakeholders is most desirable. It is hoped that the parliament and the courts will find a way out when this issue is finally resolved next year. Political instability will grow: Given the long adjournment and unanswered questions, the uncertainty will grow and the warring politicians and forces that want democracy to be scuttled will continue to use this period for tactical games against the Parliament and the civilian government. This is not the intent of Supreme Court, which has acted wisely in the given circumstances. But such an unintended consequence will be unfortunate for the country and its civilian governance. At a time when the crises facing Pakistan have snowballed into a battle for survival, such developments will be tragic. It is time the parliament and the executive took a pragmatic view of the situation without compromising on the separation of powers. This will not be an easy job and shall be a tightrope walk between constitutionalism and political compromises. Let's hope that the parliament is upto the challenges and the Supreme Court continues to manifest its concern for the democratic system. One simple fact is paramount: the interest, independence and efficacy of civilian institutions are inextricably linked to a healthy evolution of democratic governance. Any diversion or collision will plunge us into a vortex of chaos and grave existential danger. The writer is a policy advisor and writer based in Lahore
Politically correct It is tough being a woman in politics By Shehar Bano Khan Rosy Senanayake is one of 13 women to sit in Sri
Lanka's 225 MPs-strong unicameral legislature as a parliamentarian. After
being in active politics for more than 20 years, Ms Senanayake is the
chief organiser for the Colombo West electorate for Sri Lanka's biggest
part, the United National Party (UNP), which is presently in opposition.
Crowned Miss Asia Pacific in the early 1980s and Mrs World in 1984, Ms
Senanayake has spun her celebrity to raise awareness on issues specific to
women. Ms Senanayake was appointed United Nations' Goodwill Ambassador in
1997 and has also served as High Commission to Malaysia. Openly conceding
Sri Lanka's regression in women's participation in politics since
achieving universal suffrage in 1931, Ms Senanayake is part of a group of
women parliamentarians, activists and academicians from SAARC countries
working to form a regional gender Sitting in her comfortable residence in Rajagiriya, Colombo, Ms Rosy Senanayake expresses her scepticisim over the Rajapaksa government's claims to 'absolute' peace after war. Her outspoken and forthright admission of the political 'gun-culture' disfavouring women somewhat demystifies Sri Lanka's development indicators brandished as landmark achievements by President Mahinda Rajapaksa's government. Following are excerpts from the interview:
The News on Sunday (TNS): To what do you attribute Sri Lanka's shockingly low 6 percent representation of women in parliament, the lowest in South Asia, despite covering vast ground in the sectors of health and education? Rosy Senanayake (RS): That's correct! Those indicators of health and education give Sri Lanka an exemplary status in South Asia, but there are so many grey areas. Women are the predominant group in Sri Lanka making up 53.8 percent of the total population. Fifty six percent of those who go for higher education are women. They contribute nearly 70 percent to the economy and more than 50 percent of the voters are also women. Those numbers certainly do not give them the status that should be theirs in Sri Lanka. They are at the lower end of the market. In politics, we have not achieved what Pakistan, Bangladesh, or India has. That is what I am constantly fighting for. TNS: Given their small number in parliament, how influential will Sri Lankan women parliamentarians be in forcing the government to legislate on combating violence against women in politics? RS: Violence against women in politics is an issue taken up by South Asia Partnership-International (SAP-I), forming part of a project called Engendering Politics in South Asia. Members of South Asia Partnership-International have suggested formation of a regional gender caucus to raise gender related issues at the SAARC level. A regional committee, consisting of members from all the SAARC countries, thus formed will take its recommendations to CEDAW. Such an initiative will force respective governments to at least initiate debate on gender issues in parliament. I know Pakistan has a national gender caucus. Sri Lanka is also trying to form one. Even though our number is small the regional caucus will help globalise an issue which might otherwise remain suppressed at the national level. TNS: A report prepared by the present government to be submitted to the United Nations on women states that women in Sri Lanka are 'not interested in politics'. How true is that official statement? RS: That is not true. It is the women at the grassroots level who are involved in mobilising the people during election campaigns. They go from door to door distributing pamphlets and following party's political strategy. When it comes to giving a nomination, a woman is not good enough. It is a culture dominated and created by men which gives no political space to women. Unless political parties facilitate women by giving them funds, protection and their rightful space, political equality is not possible. I was given nomination because they knew I was a popular figure and I could get votes. Thereafter, I was left alone and had to struggle on my own. TNS: What are the hindrances you have faced as a politician? RS: Being a woman, unfortunately, has been the greatest hindrance to my political career. The other is my religion. Even though I belong to the majority community, I come from a minority Christian religion. Those two have been debilitating effects on my politics. In all honesty I must admit it is tough being a woman in politics. My constituency is the smallest in the entire country. If I am to represent just my electorate and get votes I would never get into parliament. So, I have to get a preferential vote from the entire district of Colombo to win. TNS: Will you describe the present political culture in Sri Lanka with despair or with hope? RS: Strictly speaking, in terms of the political culture I think there is hope. By comparison, Sri Lanka had a better political system in the past when we were following the 'first past the post system' instead of the present proportional representation system where you are contesting for votes against your own party candidates. Colombo has 15 electorates and during the previous general elections I had to go into other people's constituencies, including my own party candidates', to canvass. Not only has this system encouraged gun culture, it has proved to be of great disadvantage to women. My constituency is the smallest in the entire country. If I were to represent just my constituency to get votes, I would have never got into parliament. I had to get preferential votes by campaigning in other people's territory to get a winnable number of votes. TNS: Are you not frightened by the political system where freedom of expression is construed as betrayal? RS: It is frightening, particularly for women. But I have been able to overcome those visible hindrances because I am not a person who parachuted into politics from nowhere. I have been in this system, working for my party behind the scenes for the last 20 years. I was in the women's wing. TNS: Women's wing? Is that not anomalous to gender equality and equity? RS: No, I have a different opinion on that aspect of women's representation in politics. I know how some people deride the concept of quota for women, terming it preferential and contrary to the spirit of equality, but I think women's participation through a reserved quota system ensures their presence rather than exclude them. In Sri Lanka, the gun culture and proportional representation are two stumbling blocks in women's access to parliamentary political participation. And by criticising a quota system we as women cannot simply overlook issues peculiar to us. At least a women's wing gives women a chance to be visible which is exceedingly difficult in a gender-biased society like ours. TNS: When did you join the United National Party (UNP)? RS: I joined the party 22 years ago and when Mr Ranil Wickremasinghe took over the party after the assassination of Mr Premadasa, the then president of Sri Lanka, he was the prime minister. Later, when he became leader of the opposition I was appointed coordinating secretary of the women's wing in 1984. Last year, I contested my first elections for the provincial council and the person running second to me was almost 50 percent behind me. TNS: Did your crown as Mrs World and Miss Asia Pacific have any bearing on popularity to pull votes? RS: Yes, definitely. It made a huge difference because people knew me as a party worker as well as a woman who had won those titles. For the present generation, I don't think that the beauty contest made as much a difference as my effort in highlighting women's issues through a television programme I hosted daily for two hours. The programme was entirely devoted to women's issues. For example, it touched upon such issues as how could a widow get her entitlement to her husband's pension or where could a young widow go? Whom could she turn to? It was a talk show which touched upon the micro issues of women. It went on for five years, helping women to become aware of their legal, reproductive, civic and various other rights. TNS: Do you think by winning the war on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sri Lanka has finally achieved peace? RS: Today, we have eradicated terrorism peculiar to Sri Lanka through means of war. Does that mean we have absolute peace? No. We have gained land from the Tamil Tigers through the means of war, but that does not mean everything is hunky dory. Now we need to work on a political situation acceptable to all the people. We must not forget that this country is multicultural, multinational, and multi-religious. The Tamil people felt deprived with a strong sense of their dignity being violated. When they felt that they had no voice and were not part of political power sharing they resorted to violence by taking up arms. The rights of Tamils and their sense of deprivation must be seen as a problem which needs to be addressed. TNS: Do you not think the nomination of General Sarath Fonseka, now behind bars on charges of treason, to contest the presidential elections against Mahinda Rajapaksa, the current president of Sri Lanka, was a wrong decision? RS: I don't think so. My party, the United National Party (UNP) had formed an alliance with 13 other parties after the announcement of the presidential elections by Mahinda Rajapaksa. These 14 parties constituted an entire opposition coming under one umbrella to form the United National Front (UNF) which was headed by Mr Ranil Wickremasinghe. The UNP, along with the Janath? Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a party with Left orientation, fielded Mr Fonseka as a common presidential candidate to beat Mr Rajapaksa. TNS: Do you think by vanquishing them with the means of arms the Tamil problem has been addressed? RS: Not at the moment. The government has been too slow in the process. We need to bring about a political solution acceptable to all. It has been nearly one and a half years since the war ended without any substantial effort made on the government's part to politically resolve the Tamil issue.
We need to think deeply about economic and political alternatives so as to attract those who are bewitched by the religious right By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar The debate over how best to deal with the phenomenon of
religious militancy is at heart a debate over the underlying cultural
preferences of the 170 million that make up Pakistan. Those who call for
the use of military means -- targeted or indiscriminate -- to do away with
militancy tend to avoid thinking about whether and to what extent values
and attitudes have changed in Pakistani society in the period that
religious militancy has entered the social and political mainstream. Everyone agrees that the rot set in during the Zia dictatorship. But the real challenge is to ascertain the manner in which the machinations of the Pakistani state and its Western patrons set into motion a process of social change that is reflected in the emergence of innumerable political organisations that seek to 'Islamise' society. In other words, did the Islamisation policy of Ziaul Haq change Pakistani society fundamentally, and forever? The obvious answer would be yes. A large and growing number of ordinary Pakistanis have become much more religious, at least in the sense of ritual observance. Mosques and madrassahs have sprung up across the length and breadth of the country. Public discourse, including mainstream politics, has been infused by religious idiom. Public space has become considerably more segregated along gender lines than it was until the 1970s, and sexual repression is now one of the biggest social problems we face. To be fair only some of these changes necessarily represent backward motion for society. That ordinary people's religious sensibilities have been heightened is retrogressive only because of the specific manner in which the changes have taken place. Increased religious observance has been coeval with intense individualism, an increasingly amoral public sphere and an injection of illicit capital into society that has dramatically transformed norms and values. So, how does this tally with the mushrooming of militant groups? It does not take a rocket scientist to recognise that the state's explicit patronage of militant groups has necessarily created a constituency within society that supports 'jihad'. This constituency includes a mercantile class that understand the link between right-wing politics and opportunities for mobility; white-collar residents of small towns and cities that look to cement their social position by adopting an overtly Islamic identity; and a variety of working-class segments that have provided the foot soldiers for the jihad. Is this motley crew representative of society at large? I think not, but the efforts of a right-wing media and the establishment's three-decade long quest to re-write history have ensured that a fairly wide cross-section of ordinary people tend to express support for 'Islamic' causes, at least in rhetorical terms. The real test, of course, comes when the mythical Islamic order that is idealised by all and sundry is actually superimposed upon the actually existing cultural system. So, for example, even before the contemporary episode of imposition of Sharia in Malakand, there have been numerous instances in modern Pakhtun history when scriptural Islamist practices were rejected by ordinary people (and elites, for that matter) under the guise that such practices did not sit well with customs and traditions that make Pakhtun society what it is. Given that Pakhtuns are generally considered to be more prone to supporting Islamist causes than the other ethnic groups that together constitute Pakistani society, it would appear reasonable to assume that resistance to the kind of 'Islamisation' that has been championed by militant groups would be fierce across most of Pakistan. But then how would such a hypothesis tally with the selective Islamisation -- some of the features of which I have mentioned above -- that has taken place in Pakistani society over the past couple of decades? I think at the heart of this quandary is the duality in our lives between Islam as an ideal (and rhetorical construct) and our actual conduct. To a certain extent, this can be traced back to the incessant efforts of the state to insist upon a unitary Muslim identity from the very inception of the state. And the majority of people, fearful of going against the grain, have accepted that invocation of Islam is an important facet of what the state considers the acceptable public persona, particularly since Ziaul Haq's Islamisation crusade began. I would also like to suggest that to better understand this moral dilemma we should pay much more attention to the struggles for material resources that have more than an incidental link to our values and attitudes, both actual and imagined. In particular, a huge amount of money has found its way to religious organisations and institutions since the late 1970s. A religious functionary in society is no longer dependent on hand-outs from the public and, in fact, has become one of the more attractive patrons around. It is necessary for much more serious inquiry to take place on the sociological bases of religious militancy. What I want to emphasise above and beyond anything else is the need for those who share a desire to reverse the trends that were set in motion under the Zia dictatorship to be much more sensitive to the deeper cultural, economic, and political changes that have taken place in this society. If we are convinced that society has withstood to a significant extent the state-sponsored Islamisation drive then we need to be able to identify and provide support to the cultural practices and institutions that represent a challenge to exclusive orthodoxy. However, we also need to avoid thinking about continuity and change in society in expressly cultural/religious terms. What I am suggesting here is that political and economic changes both related to and independent of the increased role of religion in society need to be understood in their own right. Just as we want to rehabilitate progressive cultural practices, we need to think deeply about economic and political alternatives so as to attract those -- both young and old -- that are bewitched by the religious right at least partially because the latter is a vehicle for political and economic change that offers the illusion of upward mobility for those who are on the margins. The left must distinguish itself from the right by not only articulating a holistic politics but also operationalising it. That this is a difficult task explains why so many of us settle for the much easier option of asking the powers-that-be to wave their proverbial magic wands and banish religious militancy from our midst.
tax reforms Slow and off track The present working of tax appellate authorities under FBR and Ministry of Law is against the principle of independence of judiciary enshrined in the Constitution By Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq According to news reports, the Tax Reforms Coordination
Group (TRCG) headed by the Finance Minister, in its meeting held on
October 17, 2010, expressed deep concerns about the poor performance of
the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in implementing Reformed General Sales
Tax (RGST). Dr. Abdul Hafeez Shaikh reportedly criticised FBR for its lack
of preparedness to implement RGST. The TRCG was astonished to learn that
FBR wanted to continue with the existing General Sales Tax (GST) and
simultaneously wanted to introduce RGST. It is lamentable that even after completion of five-year World Bank-funded Tax Administration Reforms Project (TARP), the fundamental issues like reducing the pending refund claims, creating a warehouse of third-party data to broaden the tax base, reducing the tax gap and implementing a credible process from the submission of returns to the automatic transfer of refunds to the taxpayers in their bank accounts are still persisting. Obviously, the FBR lacks skilled manpower, a dependable automation system and sustained commitment from senior management for reforms. After spending billions of borrowed funds, FBR is a symbol of failure-- corruption is rampant in ranks and file, tax-to-GDP ratio is getting worse, out sourcing of audit has proved to be a fiasco and tax evasion and avoidance are order of the day. The TRCG, like many such reform committees in the past, is doomed to fail as well. The fact that the meeting was attended by the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, the Governor of State Bank, the Finance Secretary and many other high officials would have little impact on tax reforms process as none of them seems to know the mundane realities of Pakistan. The bureaucrats and IMF-World Bank trained professionals are incapable of bringing any positive change in our tax culture or system. They are completely alienated from the masses. Sitting in air-conditioned rooms, they float "brilliant" and "innovative" ideas but have no clue how to give them a practical shape. Their closed-door bureaucratic discussions without involving FBR's workers, who have to ultimately implement these ideas, testify to their faulty approach. FBR's field officers and their staff are incompetent, corrupt, unwilling and inefficient. Thus no reform agenda can succeed unless the workforce in FBR undergoes complete metamorphosis. On November 25, 2008, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved the $7.6 billion standby arrangement for Pakistan to be delivered over 23-month, which was later enhanced to $11.3 billion in July 2009. One of the demands of the lender was introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) from July 1, 2010. It was deferred to October 1, 2010 and now IMF has suspended release of the last tranche unless it is implemented as FBR failed to introduce RGST after lapse of the deadline fixed by the government in the budget speech of Finance Minister. FBR contends reluctance of Sindh to give it right to collection for its failure to implement VAT (now called RGST). Sindh says it has established its own Revenue Service and would collect VAT on services independently, which is its Constitutional right. This tug of war has serious political and economic repercussions. FBR's highhandedness in taxation matters is destroying relations between the federation and the federating units as well as destroying business growth in Pakistan. The zeal of the tax officials in collecting taxes at the moment is motivated by self-interest as they are more interested in meeting their individual targets than those fixed for the State. Corruption cannot be checked by just paying them double-salary. They should be given best possible housing facilities within special purpose built tax complexes -- having own schools and hospitals -- so they can perform their duties with peace of mind. We need to train them like FBI and IRS agents in USA but at the same time have severe penalties if anyone of them is found guilty of corruption and/or inefficiency. Over the last many years, the need for tax reforms is stressed and reiterated by all quarters including the government itself. However, each attempt in this direction has proved to be a complete failure, the main reason being that search for rationalisation and simplification of our tax laws is misdirected as we are living in an era of complex and intricate economic environment. Neither the official policymakers nor the professionals hired on behalf of IMF/World Bank possess the required vision for this gigantic exercise, as they lack understanding of everyday realities of Pakistan -- stress for introduction of VAT being a classic example. A low rate GST between 4 to 6 per cent across the board could bring better results in a country where business houses are still not equipped for managing sophisticated VAT. People are already over-taxed while there is no accountability for those who mercilessly plunder the national kitty. Our tax justice system is one of the worst ones in the world. Honest taxpayers are the victims of arbitrariness. Those who do not pay taxes in connivance with tax collectors flourish. For them, not paying to the State is better than paying the tax collector for his self-aggrandisement. This is a pathetic state of affairs. The tax collectors want easy ways to achieve targets without bringing into tax net those who do not pay. Under these circumstances, the existing taxpayers bear the burden of the non-filers as well. They get notices for arbitrary tax demands and no justice system comes to their rescue. The members of TRCG when at the helm of affairs -- heading the FBR -- were responsible for destroying this organisation. Now they have been called again to further compound the problems. There is no political will to tax the rich and mighty. They have not pointed this out in their recommendations (sic). Instead of more taxes we need reduction in excessive marginal tax rates making them compatible with other tax jurisdictions of the world, especially Asia. Elimination of GST on production, machinery and equipment is the need of the hour to promote industrialisation, but they have advised otherwise. This shows their level of understanding of our economic realities. USA is reducing interest rates and giving tax breaks for economic revival while we are increasing them both in an ailing economy. We must go for substantial reduction in corporate tax rate that is the main stumbling block for new investments which is drying up day by day. Pakistan needs openness and accountability in the government to enable citizens to understand and participate fully in the process of national integration. This includes live telecast of the assembly proceedings and scrutiny of every single penny of tax spent. The present tax culture is based on "bad faith" between the taxpayers and the tax collectors. Both are victims of self-interest and their main aim is to cheat one another. This culture can only be changed if an effective tax justice system is introduced and properly implemented. All appellate tax authorities should be part of judicial service working under the control of the respective High Court. The present working of tax appellate authorities under FBR and Ministry of Law is against the principle of independence of judiciary enshrined in Constitution. The Tribunal as well as first appellate forum (commissioner/collector appeals) should work under the High Court of their territorial jurisdiction. It is the need of the hour to free the tax justice system from the administrative clutches of the Ministry of Law and FBR. True business growth cannot be achieved by just announcing policies and concessions and forming Tax Reforms Coordination Group. The system must work on ground ensuring taxpayers of their rights and punishing tax collectors for their highhandedness. An independent tax justice system alone can enforce Taxpayers' Bill of Rights--we have yet to enact this vital law that is in vogue in all democratic countries--to guarantee business expansion as well as the proper collection of revenues in Pakistan. The writers, tax lawyers, are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)
The launch of the British Pakistan Foundation in London was a glittering affair that raised over 200,000 pounds for flood relief By Murtaza Ali Shah and Beena Sarwar It was certainly something to write home about: a black tie affair, fundraising dinner with a heart, attended by a glittering galaxy of the who's who of Britain's Pakistani community and their friends. The occasion: the high profile launch of the British Pakistan Foundation (BPF) at London's Hilton Park Lane hotel last weekend. Guests were welcomed at the entrance by eye-catching
women in white with British and Pakistani flags, balancing on stilts. The
dining hall inside, packed to capacity, testified to the desire of
expatriates wanting to contribute to the home country, particularly in the
wake of the floods that have devastated Pakistan. "We didn't expect so many people to buy tickets," said Kashif Zafar, a banker, one of the organisers, who has recently moved to London from New York with his Indian-born wife Sujata. At GBP 150 a plate, his initial apprehension prior to the event was understandable. "Now we are worried we will be over capacity," his friend and fellow organiser Faisal Mir told The News at the opening reception. Also a banker based in London, Mir worked in his student days as a journalist with The Frontier Post in Lahore and is also, coincidentally, married to an Indian woman. Pakistani born bankers and hedge-fund managers like Zafar and Mir bought the bulk of the 10-12-seater tables crammed into the dining hall. Over 700 guests are estimated to have finally attended the event that had an initial seating capacity of 600. At the launch, BPF Chairman, the charismatic British-Pakistani entrepreneur, television personality (from BBC's hit series 'Dragon's Den') and philanthropist James Caan (born Nazim Khan in Lahore, 1960) told the audience how the Foundation had started, inspired by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi -- along the lines of the American Pakistan Foundation that he had earlier encouraged, launched in 2009. The Foreign Minister, suave in a black sherwani, was
present, accompanied by the High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hasan and
other members of the Pakistani mission in London. Seated at the main table
with Qureshi was British Foreign Minister William Hague, along with
Baroness Saeeda Warsi and several other front-benchers from the Labour,
Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. They listened intently as Caan spoke simply, and from the heart, about the devastation caused by floods in Pakistan. He spoke from personal knowledge, having just returned from a trip to the flood-hit areas where the James Caan Foundation (JCF) is working on a just launched, ambitious 'Build A Village' project. "I have to tell you about a man I met near Nowshera. He told me how he saved his 80-year old blind mother from the flood waters and in the process, lost his 13-year old daughter, who was swept away, never to be seen again. This is just one of so many tragedies caused by the floods." He drew inspiration from the dedicated hard work of volunteers in the affected areas. "I'm proud of our community and what we have done," said Caan. "I can't explain the devastation I saw, traveling with the US Army, seeing a land mass the size of the UK under water. The level of tragedy is beyond anything I have ever seen. Once an issue is out of the media spotlight, it gets forgotten." But we can't afford to forget this tragedy, he stressed. The BPF, being launched at a critical moment in Pakistan's history, is dedicated to improving the socio-economic condition of the people of Pakistan, he said. Caan, who has been active in raising awareness about the plight of flood affected victims in the mainstream British media, believes that the British Pakistani community can be a potent force for development for Pakistan through remittances and philanthropy, as well as through the promotion of trade, investments, knowledge and technology transfers. "Please be generous, please donate because they need our help, and they need it now," he concluded. His speech was followed by brief addresses by Mr Qureshi and Mr Hague, who stressed the need for Britain and Pakistan to work together to further strengthen socio-economic and cultural ties at the government and the people-to-people level. Shah Mahmood Qureshi said he was inspired by the enthusiasm of young British Pakistanis. Commending those at the forefront of starting the BPF, he termed the launch as a turning point for relations of two countries, as it testified to the desire of expatriates to be part of the process to strengthen Pakistan, rejuvenating hopes about the country's future. "British Pakistanis are the ambassadors of Pakistan and an integral part of the close relations between the countries," he said. "We all have stakes in a strong and prosperous Pakistan. A deep partnership exists between the UK and Pakistan and it is made possible by the over one million strong diaspora of Pakistanis who have given back to Pakistan on every difficult occasion. The people of Pakistan are deeply appreciative of the generosity of the British people in flood relief efforts." He appreciated the visits of senior British political figures to Pakistan's flood affected areas. "They have helped Pakistan raise awareness about the true scale of the disaster," he said, detailing the scale of the devastation caused by the floods. He appealed to the British government and public to continue supporting Pakistan's recovery and rehabilitation efforts. British Foreign Secretary William Hague announced British government's "100 percent support" to BPF and its vision of helping the socio-economic development of Pakistan and its people. "Pakistanis are talented and rich in ideas. They have contributed greatly to life in the UK. Their intellectual ability can be utilised to engineer the prosperity and development of Pakistan but it needs help from friends of Pakistan abroad. The role of diaspora Pakistanis is crucial in this regard." "Pakistan," he added, "is a young democracy beset by complex problems which could have taxed the resources and stability of any state in the world. The human toll exacted by the challenges demands our concern and our passion." Hague said Pakistan was a key strategic partner to Britain in the region. "Britain will always help Pakistan wherever it can, whether during natural calamities such as the recent floods and 2005 earthquake or advocating for concessions to Pakistan at the European level." "Pakistan needs the support of the international community over a long term," he said. "Britain will be the staunchest supporter of Pakistan's democratic future." He referred to the recent meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan where Britain strongly advocated the case of Pakistan. He also spoke about the dire need to bring necessary reforms to Pakistan's economic structure. The event was attended by leading Pakistanis from the field of sport, business, music, film, politics and entertainment as well heads of major NGOs, mainstream journalists, heads of financial institutions, key figures of the three main parties and heads of international banks and other financial institutions. They included Lyse Doucet of the BBC and the legendary Shoaib Sultan Khan who pioneered the rural support programmes that have done much to alleviate the lot of the rural poor in Pakistan. Hitan Mehta, Director Operations of the British Asian Trust (one of The Prince's Charities) was also there, eager to help with Pakistan flood relief. The speeches were followed by dinner and then a live auction taking up from where the silent auction had left off. Carolinne Oliphant, the experienced auctioneer from Bonhams, coaxed and lured the audience into bidding higher and higher amounts for the dazzling array of art works and memorabilia donated for the fundraiser. A "Bismillah" engraved in Swarovsky crystal, went for GBP 5,000 (way over the reserve price of GBP 1,200). A limited edition print titled 'Red Silks 4' by Nusra Qureshi (donated by Green Cardamom Gallery) sold for GBP 3,000 (reserve price GBP 800). A series of M. F. Husain's 'Mother Teresa' prints went for a steal -- GBP 10,500 (reserve GBP 7,000). And so it went. By the end of the evening, the BPF netted over GBP 2,25,000 (they are still calculating the profits) to be given as donation for Pakistan flood relief. Typically for a Pakistan event, it went way over the original closing time. The auction itself ran past midnight, and was followed by the popular rock band Strings, flown in especially for the fundraiser. Strings mesmerised the diverse crowd with their hit songs for some two hours before calling it a night. And what a night it was.
Out of sight Floods cannot be the only excuse for not achieving the MDGs By Afshan Ahmed The Millennium Declaration to attain development goals
(MDG) in 2000 was a milestone in the international cooperation, inspiring
192 UN member states including Pakistan to improve the lives of billions
of people around the world. Pakistan is lagging behind in achievement of
these goals and the Government of Pakistan, in its report to MDG
secretariat, gives more excuses and reasons to lag behind rather than
proposing a viable layout and solution for future. Current floods in
Pakistan have destroyed most of the social and civil infra structure in
almost 75 districts in Pakistan and would require another decade to put
the life at normal track, making achievement of MDGs even difficult. Out of the above mentioned 75 districts, 24 districts of KP have been adversely affected. According to the Provincial Education Department's initial assessment almost 1000 schools have been completely destroyed during the flood in KP only. Here it is pertinent to note that the education system in KP is already marred by terrorism turning many girls schools into ghost schools. Education sector in Sindh is also hit badly due to recent floods where actual loss is still being estimated. This would hamper Pakistan's efforts in improving gender disparity index in Pakistan resulting into increased social exclusion of girls with low enrollment ratio especially at secondary education level. Floods cannot be the only excuse for not achieving the MDGs. One needs to look into government allocation and spending on education sector too. Even before floods this sector was hit by governance disaster with only 2.05pc of GDP allocation; 10.9pc of exiting schools were without building and 37.7 percent were without a boundary wall besides lacking other facilities such as drinking water, toilet and electricity. No wonder we failed to achieve our MDG target on education so far. Reduction in infant mortality is another MDG that we missed badly. Pakistan has one of the highest infant mortality rates in region even worst than Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka. The progress report on MDG fourth series shows only 1 percentage point increase under Fully Immunized Population Proportion between 2004-5 and 2008-9. Except for Punjab, all the remaining provinces have shown a decline in percentage in immunization coverage. The situation will be further aggravated by floods where according to UN, almost 3.5 million children are at risk of deadly diseases in the flood affected areas. Towards the goal of improving maternal health Pakistan needs to achieve fifty percent more in next five years what it has done so far. Due to current damages health delivery system has been also affected and life of hundreds of pregnant women is at risk. In many flood-hit areas, hundreds of patients have reported with skin infections, diarrhea, gastro, mental stress, anxiety, high blood pressure and dehydration. Floods have already destroyed and would continue to destroy the livelihood assets of almost 20 million people. Majority of them were dependent on daily wages or cash crop sale. They have not only lost their livelihood assets but operating markets and institutions too resulting in increased vulnerability and deepened poverty. One million tons of wheat stored at railways platforms or in flourmills has been destroyed and the price of the commodity has already risen by Rs125 per 40 kg. The supply of vegetables, fruits, and grains is badly affected. Rice crop in Sindh and sugarcane crop in KP is completely damaged, all of this would not only result into severe food crisis in months to come but also be a major blow to Pakistan's efforts towards reduction of hunger and poverty by fifty percent. Pakistan's record in not very impressive as far as progress on MDG 7 (environmental conservation) is concerned. Area under administrative control under provincial forest departments (irrespective of the fact whether it has any plantation or not) is considered as forest. Even by this definition there is no significant increase in area under forests since 1990-2009. It is widely assumed that massive deforestation was one of the root causes of floods in KPK. Progress on conserving biodiversity was bleak too. Pakistan has been allowing the Arab princes to hunt black tiger and other threatened species for last many decades. Due to floods many of these species including Indus dolphin suffered even badly and are further threatened. GDP per unit of energy has been adopted as a proxy for measuring energy efficiency which is highly irregular since 2004. Pakistan has the largest fleet of vehicles running on CNG in South Asia and seems to meet at least one of the indicators on sustainability of environment. However, the challenge is to ensure the provision of demanded fuel at reasonable cost especially after the disrupted transportation system. A national Environment policy has been formulated along with well equipped national center for drought and early warnings but it has to be integrated with zoning of land to deal with any future calamities. Pakistan's environmental fragility can be assessed due to current rains which are also being attributed to global warming. Usually countries doing better on MDG1 (poverty reduction) face a failure on MDG7 as it is often perceived that development leading to poverty reduction would have negative affects on environment. However, in our case we are failing on both ends. In November 2010, the world leader will gather in New York to review the progress towards MDG. Perhaps the delegation of Pakistan would be looking at bright side of the floods -- an excuse for not delivering on MDG goals. However, one needs to remind the policy makers that natural calamity can be avoided turning into human disaster by right priorities and in our case MDG never seemed to be our first priority to begin with. We need to think of development beyond millennium development goals and for that particular purpose need to build not only our case for international community but also need to mend our acts at domestic front. The writer is research associate at Sustainable Development Policy Institute and can be reached at afshan@sdpi.org
Right to information remains off limits to many By Zahid Abdullah More things change, more they remain the same. This
cannot be more applicable to anything than our bureaucracy. Perennially
subservient to its masters, whether political or dictatorial variety, it
refuses to be open and transparent in its functioning. This is ostensibly
done on the pretext of following rules and obeying the dictates of the
rulers. Loot and plunder the public money and then cite the rules if the
information is sought about the way public money is spent seems to be the
order of the day as far as the nexus between the corrupt is concerned. Preoccupation of print and electronic media with putting to microscopic scrutiny deeds of politicians has resulted in devoting far less attention to those of the bureaucrats. While politicians as elected representatives will always have greater visibility and accessibility, and, therefore, will be subjected to greater level of public scrutiny, we will have to find ways and means for greater public accountability of invisible and elusive bureaucrats. One way of promoting public accountability of elected and public representatives is putting in place right to information law under which a mechanism laid down for providing information to citizens on demand as well as making information public through proactive disclosure. Over 100 countries have enacted such laws. Closer at home, Bangladesh and India have enacted effective information laws, especially the one in India is being used as a powerful tool to make politicians and bureaucrats accountable and check corruption. Our bureaucracy could not remain aloof to the demands for an information law. However, it came up with a very weak law in the shape of Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 and whatever effectiveness it had was watered down through its subordinate rules which were framed in 2004. Whenever yours truly sought information using this law, bureaucrats denied information requests paddling excuses which one does not know whether to call them flimsy or pathetic or both. Same happened to the information request filed by Mukhtar Ahmed Ali, a citizen based in Islamabad. On January 13, 2010, he filed an information request to Federal Bureau of revenue (FBR) under Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 asking the FBR to provide certified information about the names, addresses and the fee paid to the lawyers by FBR to represent it in courts from January 1, 2004 to December 21, 2009. On February 22, 2010, FBR provided an answer in one liner: "The required information does not come within the ambit of section 7 of Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002". On the intervention of Federal Ombudsman, FBR explained its position on March 4, 2010 and took the plea that the requested information was part of file noting which were exempted under the FIO. (Interestingly, the requester had sought access to the contracts between lawyers and FBR and had never demanded file notings in the first place). FBR also maintained that "it invaded the privacy of the individual. "The constitution of Pakistan gives protection to the privacy of individuals and the complainant is desirous of violating this fundamental right". No one can claim right to privacy when paid from public funds but look at the great lengths FBR bureaucracy is willing to go, even invoking constitution of the country, to protect information about the fee it paid to the lawyers from public funds. No wonder, the Federal Tax Ombudsman after hearing both parties on May 10, 2010, in its finding said, "The requested information falls in the category of public record," and that "FBR is wrong in presuming that complainant is requesting information which is excluded under section 8(a) of FOI Ordinance." Since decisions of Federal Tax Ombudsman are recommendatory in nature, therefore, it recommended FBR to provide information to requester within 21 days. Instead of compliance, the FBR chose to file representation to the President of Pakistan and prayed him to set aside the information request "in the name of law". A similar information request was submitted to the ministry of law and justice by yours truly in May 2008 asking certified copy of the list of names and addresses of the lawyers hired by the ministry to represent the Federal Government in the Supreme Court and the fee paid to each lawyer. The grounds on which the requested information was denied were even flimsier. The Ministry commented to the Ombudsman that "if the required information is provided to the applicant, the same would create unnecessary problems and will open a Pandora's Box…" The information request was termed as "indirect interference into the working of the government". Politicians need to make bureaucratic functioning open and transparent by making bureaucracy subservient to the will of people. The government is moving in the right direction as it is in the process of finalising the draft of Freedom of Information Bill 2010. Bureaucracies in Bangladesh an India, still prisoners of the past and living in colonial era, resisted the enactment of right to information laws and our bureaucracy is not going to be any exception. The challenge for politicians will be to sift bureaucratic shenanigans from legitimate concerns as they finalise the Freedom of Information Bill 2010. Their counterparts in India held bureaucrats at bay and sought an acted upon expert advice from the right to information activists. Congress party is still reaping dividends for enacting a powerful right to information law and hopefully this fact is not lost to the present government. The writer works for Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives.
Now fake fertilizers The question is how fake products find their way into the market? By Muhammad Ibrahim Fertilizers containing essential plant nutrients are the need of the hour because high yield crops require these nutrients in large amounts that are not recycled in same quantities as these are removed from field. Under such situation, these nutrients should serve as replenishment in the soil. Fertilizers like, urea, di-ammonium phosphate (DAP),
single super phosphate (SSP), SOP (sulfate of potash), MOP (potassium
chloride), and Zinc sulfate, etc, are a reality and there is a great need
to apply these nutrients. In addition, the use of animal manures, organic
matter, and poultry manure cannot be over-emphasized. For centuries, our
grand parents were using these manures because land was large and
population was small to feed. Now the whole process is reversed and it is getting worse by the day. People having vested interests with least concern about people and the country understood well the whole situation and came up with fake fertilizers having confusing names which innocent farmers do not understand. Even government closes her eyes on such sophisticated robbers. With few exceptions, the government machinery is helpless and reasons are known. Companies with fake products are making a fortune. Last week, there was an advertisement about homeophos fertilizer in one kg pack with the claim to solubilize soil phosphorus. That means some companies are fooling the people. But there is nothing new in this practice which is going on for decades. If we study the history of such claims, people behind such fertilizers are either non-professional or those who don't know the subject in depth as money is their motive. Companies that make such claims are committing a crime against the poor farmers. One group of researchers also claims that humic acid does miracle on crops. The claims are wrong and are not substantiated by data in Pakistan. The humic acid sold in Pakistan is made out of coal which is nothing but small amount of carbon in a bottle. One of my friends who prepares and supplies humic acid to big marketing companies discloses that people grind coal, mix it with small amount of potassium sulfate and supply it at the rate of Rs30 to 40 per kg. This one kg coal packing having small quantity of potassium labeled as humic acid is then sold to the farmers at the rate of Rs200 to 400 per liter or kg with no positive results on the ground. The dose and effectiveness of such fake humic acids have not been tested by the agriculture department. The question is how these products find their way into the market? Who allows them to be sold? The departments concerned seem to be least interested in such matters. What is needed in the soil for raising crops is known to soil specialists and agronomists and does not need any explanation, then why such fake fertilizers in market are allowed? The selling of fake fertilizers is ripping the poor and innocent farmers of their hard-earned money. Here one can give a classical example by referring information from Rathemstead England and information from US, which says that a gram of arable land contains about billions of microorganisms with ten thousands species which could be further multiplied by giving them proper food. Arable soils having such high numbers of microbes still need application of microbes to solubilise the soil nutrients. People suggesting and recommending such fertilizers without any positive results have their vested interests and marketing companies selling these products must be stopped and accounted for. The writer is a veteran agriculture scientist with a PhD degree from University of Hawaii. He can be reached at mibrahim1946@yahoo.com
|
|
caucus.
