|
|
|
| July 20, 2005 | Wednesday | Jumadi-us-Sani 12, 1426 |
Ministry told to submit summary to PM: Revival of population welfare trust
ISLAMABAD, July 19: The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Population Welfare on Tuesday asked the federal population welfare ministry to submit a revised summary to the prime minister on how to make the National Trust for Population Welfare (Natpow) an effective body. In a meeting presided over by Gule Farkhanda at the National Assembly, the members of the committee, after two hours of deliberations, decided to constitute a five member sub-committee with Rifat Amjad as convenor. The sub-committee would sort out differences between elected members of Natpow’s board of directors and the ministry officials over its working.
The sub-committee was asked to report back within seven days as to what could be the possible measures to make the trust a functional body.
Ms Farkhanda also asked additional secretary Javed Alam, who was representing the ministry, to submit a revised summary to the prime minister indicating all legal aspects to make the trust fully operative on emergency basis.
Natpow’s Director Malik Nadeem Hassan told the committee members that the trust was established in November 1994 under the Charitable Endowment Act 1890 with an endowment fund of Rs104 million. Its purpose was to help non-governmental organizations and private sector in the field of population welfare, especially family planning, and mother and child health.
With Pakistan having nuclear explosions in May 1998, international donor agencies stopped doling out money and eventually the trust became inactive, he said.
However, on World Population Day on July 11, 2000, the then chief executive, Gen Pervez Musharraf, said the trust would be converted into an autonomous, democratically-structured, professionally-managed and transparently-run organization.
In compliance of the directive, the ministry, after holding consultations, proposed various amendments to the scheme of administration, including constitution of the board of directors.
It was decided that the board of directors would have seven NGOs’ representatives: two from Punjab and one each from the NWFP, Balochistan, Sindh, one from AJK, ICT, and NAs, and one from NGOs of national status. Besides, three members will be from private sector, nominated by the government, three ex-officio members — secretaries of economic affairs, population welfare and finance divisions — and one chief executive.
The election for Natpow’s board of directors was held in January 2003, and after five months in June, the ministry notified the board members’ names.
The first meeting of the board was called on July 29, 2003, but it was postponed due to, what the ministry called, technical reasons at the eleventh hour when all the members had reached Islamabad.
Even after more than two years of the board members’ election, the ministry is yet to hold its first meeting. Answering a question, Javed Alam said: “We cannot call its meeting since chief executive and one member had to be appointed”.
Elected members of the trust’s board of directors present on the occasion criticized the ministry and alleged that it did not call the board meeting to perpetuate its hold on Natpow.
They further alleged that the ministry misled the prime minister and did not provide him adequate information about Natpow’s working and got one-sided amendments to its scheme of administration and by-laws.
Mr Khushnood, who represents AJK, NA and ICT, on the board of directors, accused the ministry officials of misusing Natpow’s vehicles, finances etc. “We have definite reports with us that even its computers have been taken away by the ministry officials,” he claimed.
Talking about the delay in holding the first meeting of the board of directors, Abdul Rahim Moosvi, a board member from Punjab, said after the election of board members, trust’s management should have been automatically transferred to the board which was never done.
On this, Mr Alam said in the absence of a complete board of directors, the ministry had the legal right to run trust’s affairs and the joint secretary was working as its chief executive.
|
|
|
|
