| February 2, 2002 | Saturday | Ziqa’ad 18, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Needless induction
Sharon’s bloodlust
WAPDA has done well to withdraw the generous element of subsidy that was being availed of by those customers who consumed 1,000 or more power units a month. The Authority is also planning to discontinue the subsidy now made available to the rest of its customers except those who consume only 50 power units or less a month. In the interest of fair play and to contain corruption that the existing arrangement may give rise to, it would be advisable to complete the process of withdrawal of subsidy at the earliest. In case this is delayed for one reason or another, the unscrupulous among the consumers are likely to spread their consumption over more than one meter and continue to enjoy subsidy. Indeed, what would stop them from splitting their total consumption into chunks of 999 power units each, with each being recorded by a separate meter, billed for and paid accordingly? The same practice could be followed even when the subsidy is allowed on consumption of 300 power units a month. So the earlier the subsidies are withdrawn the lesser would be the chances of corruption by manipulation by the rich and resourceful consumers.
In doing so, however, it would be wholly unjustified, indeed illegal, to make the new, higher rates payable retrospectively — which is what is being done in the present case in the name of collection of arrears. No matter who the customer is, rich or poor, it is impermissible to charge him higher than the price prevalent at the time of buying or consumption of some commodities or services. It is like punishing somebody for breaking a law framed after he had committed the ‘crime’. If the delay in implementing a policy has occurred because of wrangling between two public sector agencies (Nepra and Wapda), it does not mean that the cost of the delay should be passed on to the captive consumers. Therefore, Wapda would do well to return the money to the consumers which it had collected as ‘arrears’.
Another issue which needs to be noted here is the impact of the escalating energy cost on Pakistan’s export competitiveness. Going by the claims of the government, relative to prices in competing countries, energy in Pakistan is still cheaper. But what it omits to mention is the fact that while domestic consumers enjoy considerable subsidies, commercial and industrial consumers enjoy no such benefit. This makes the energy component of our export goods costlier than that of the goods exported by competing countries where the industrial consumers enjoy a significant subsidy on their energy inputs, making their goods more competitive than ours in the international markets. While reducing the subsidy for domestic power consumers, Wapda could perhaps consider offering industrial consumers discounts on wholesale purchases on the premise that the more units one buys the less one pays per unit. This would also serve as an added incentive for the investors who feel discouraged by the high cost of energy in Pakistan. Also this would take care of the surplus energy which Wapda does not know what to do with.
IT is difficult to see the need or wisdom behind the government’s decision to induct army officers into the anti-terrorism courts. An ATC will now have three members, two of whom will be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, while an army officer, not below the rank of Lt-Colonel, will be nominated by the federal government. The reason given by the government for the reconstitution of the ATCs is that the existing anti-terrorism courts are slow in disposing of cases. It is not clear, however, in what way the mere induction of army officers will speed up the trial process. While frustrating delays are a characteristic of our judicial system, the inclusion of an army officer in an ATC is unlikely to reverse the trend. Rather, it will earn the government a bad name, for the move will be seen as an attempt to manipulate the judicial process. Besides, as the Supreme Court Bar Association has pointed out, the decision is unconstitutional and it is going to resist it. The government would do well to listen to what the Chief Justices’ Committee had to say about the ATCs. At a meeting held earlier this week, the committee said the ATCs were not delivering because the government itself had failed to support them. Among the constraints it listed were the absence of adequate support staff and the non-availability of fax machines and computers. More important was the attitude of the police, because investigating officers did not come up with charge sheets on time, and reports from chemical examiners and ballistic experts were invariably delayed.
The point is that the country does not need a parallel judicial system. The existing courts are, intrinsically, quite capable of doing justice in all cases. However, they are fewer in number than required, and they, too, are handicapped by lack of facilities, prosecution delays and so on. In any case, it is an odd argument to suggest that mere presence of an army officer in an essentially civilian court is what is needed to speed up the course of justice despite all the deficiencies and lapses that are still there to impede the process.
THE murderous sentiments expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a recent interview seemed more becoming of a gangster than a head of government. Speaking to an Israeli newspaper, Sharon brazenly expressed his regrets for not having “eliminated” Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 1982 during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. “It was decided to eliminate him” he said. “I am sorry we didn’t.” With Sharon calling the shots as defence minister during the period, a plan was hatched to get rid of Arafat. However, the decision was overruled under an agreement and it was decided to allow Arafat and his men safe passage out of Beirut, which was under Israeli siege. Two decades down the road, Sharon is the prime minister of Israel and Arafat is surrounded by Israeli tanks and troops in his Ramallah offices. Sharon is clearly bent on undoing all the progress made between Israel and the Palestinians during the intervening years and to finish off the mission he set out to achieve in 1982. Interestingly, Sharon’s interview was published at a time when Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Abu Ala, were in New York attending the World Economic Forum.
The two men were to meet and try to finalize a draft agreement that could lead to a ceasefire as well as the recognition of a Palestinian state by Israel. His outburst against Arafat could well scuttle the talks. Whatever the motives, it is quite astonishing that the prime minister of a country can talk so openly about eliminating his Palestinian counterpart. Worse, such provocative comments are met with a resounding silence from Israel’s patrons in the US. Sharon has obviously been emboldened by the US decision to back his extreme measures against Arafat and the Palestinians. Washington has increasingly distanced itself from Arafat and stated that it “understands” Israel’s decision to make him a virtual prisoner in his own territory. The US must rethink its growing tilt in favour of Sharon’s extremist policies before the frustration and rage of the Palestinians boils over into a more serious eruption in the region.