|
| June 16, 2006 | Friday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 19, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
More violence in Sri Lanka
Crackdown on ginger traders
Social security in Islam
Digital overload
AN efficient system of social security is one of the main features of a welfare state. Social security signifies the financial assistance provided by the state to people who are genuinely in need; providing them those basic necessities without which survival is difficult, if not impossible.
A MEASURE of how Punjab is run came on Tuesday, when the chief minister made next fiscal year’s budgetary allocations public — a day before the provincial budget was presented in the Punjab Assembly. On Wednesday, the opposition members staged a token walkout; those remaining in the house paid little attention to the finance minister’s speech. Taking credit for the highest-ever outlay of Rs274 billion, including Rs100 billion for the annual development programme, CM Pervaiz Elahi defended his decision to out the budget ahead of time, saying he had not revealed the secret part of the document — the taxes. But then he had said that no new taxes would be imposed. As in the past, the budget relies heavily on revenue receipts from the federal divisible pool, which is estimated to contribute 66 per cent to the total outlay for fiscal 2006-07, with only 21 per cent coming from the province’s own revenues. The outgoing year’s capital receipts were estimated at Rs98 billion but had later to be revised down to Rs66 billion. A question mark therefore hangs over the 55 per cent optimistic increase seen in the estimated receipts for the next fiscal.
As for the ADP, the CM claimed that 97 per cent of the outgoing year’s development funds had been utilised; hence an increase of 59 per cent in the current ADP. However, serious reservations remain as to the capacity of the existing infrastructure to absorb the enhanced allocation. A total of Rs100 billion ADP fund this year will see 11 per cent more going to the underdeveloped southern Punjab districts as compared to the outgoing year. This is a step in the right direction and will help narrow the disparity between southern and central Punjab. On the flip side, however, only Rs12 billion will trickle down to the districts out of the ADP fund, ostensibly because the districts do not have the capacity to utilise more funds at the grassroots level. Considering that there are 35 districts in Punjab, the allocated sum is only a drop in the ocean. No additional funds have been earmarked for building a greater fiscal capacity at the district level, nor are prioritised development plans being solicited from the district governments.
Lahore, with its massive urban problems, gets no more than Rs24 billion from the ADP. A good part of the money will be spent on further developing the now truncated Ring Road aimed at reducing congestion on city roads, but whose total length was revised downwards last year for unknown reasons. Funds for the construction of a 101km Lahore-Sialkot motorway will also come from the same source. As in the previous years, the CM again promised the building of a mass transit train system for the congested metropolis, but no such plan has yet been approved. Nor is there a plan to address the chronic problem of housing in the Punjab capital, with the real estate mafia being given a free hand to keep land and housing units beyond the reach of the genuine buyers. No significant amount has been allocated for the housing sector either.
The public health sector gets a paltry Rs4.3 billion this year, up from the previous year’s Rs3.3 billion, which depresses hopes for a turnaround in this traditionally neglected sector. Potable water supply and sanitation, too, remain areas of low priority. Education gets Rs12.5 billion — up from Rs9.2 billion, but as in the outgoing fiscal year, much of the money from the ADP allocation will be spent on bolstering higher education and little at the primary and secondary school levels. This is another budget that relies heavily on the materialisation of estimated funds, hoping to fall back on the Rs82.71 billion estimated in surplus receipts.
DESPITE the best efforts of its Scandinavian monitors, Sri Lanka’s tenuous peace process received another jolt on Thursday when more than 60 people aboard a bus in a Sinhalese-dominated area in the northern part of the island were killed in a mine explosion. Unconvinced by the Tamil Tigers’ denial of responsibility for it, the Sri Lankan air force has been bombarding rebel positions, an action which it has been increasingly resorting to of late, in retaliation for Tiger attacks. Both sides claim that the 2002 ceasefire still holds, with the Tamils calling for its revival. But their stance is belied by the fact that almost 800 people have died in violence since last December, soon after the election of Mahinda Rajapakse as president.
If the government and the rebels are sincere about settling their differences, they will have to show greater commitment to the truce by listening not only to each other’s grievances but also to the monitoring team which, weary of its efforts to achieve a breakthrough, was on the point of packing up to go home. The fact that both the government and the rebels have recently criticised the monitors for different reasons, shows that each side is obsessed with its own perception of things and is unwilling to give credence to the views of neutral monitors, especially if it means lowering their demands. This inflexible attitude does not augur well for long-term peace, and if pursued could unleash another cycle of violence more devastating than the one that began in 1983 and which took more than 65,000 lives. The Sri Lankan civilians — Tamils and Sinhalese — who are waiting to pick up the pieces in the wake of the conflict and the 2004 Asian tsunami, deserve better than this.
THE tendency among elements in the business community to maximise profits at the cost of public health has been brought to the fore by the recent crackdown on ginger-processing plants in the federal capital. To the alarm of consumers, it has come to light that ginger sold across the country is routinely soaked in an acidic solution that significantly increases the tuber’s weight besides making it cleaner and thereby more attractive to the buyer. For unscrupulous ginger traders, a blemish-free product that weighs four times as much as it ought to in its natural form translates into massive, albeit tainted, cash windfalls. Health concerns and violations of the Pure Food Act evidently take a back seat in this scenario. Health experts confirm that consumption of ginger subjected to such treatment, said to involve a toxic brew of sulphuric acid and baking soda, may cause mouth and gastrointestinal ulcers, even cancer. Widely used as a spice or garnish, ginger is not grown on a commercial scale in Pakistan and is imported from countries including Bangladesh, Burma, China, India and Singapore. The imported ginger is first stored — and, it now emerges, chemically treated — in Islamabad prior to its dispatch to markets throughout the country. So far there is no word from official quarters on how consumers can safely distinguish between contaminated and acid-free ginger.
This latest revelation comes on the heels of growing concerns over food safety, in particular the hazards posed by fruit and vegetables grown on farms irrigated with industrial effluent-mixed water. Among other potentially harmful practices, pulses and lentils are frequently dyed to enhance their visual appeal to buyers. Taking a cue from the welcome campaign against tainted ginger, it is time the relevant authorities made a concerted effort to ensure not just the right price but also the quality of food items.
It has two-fold benefits: (1) misery and deprivation is effectively cut down; and (2) crime rate is substantially decreased as the destitute need not resort to unfair means and violence in order to support themselves. A truly Islamic state serves as a perfect example of a state where every subject is cared for and supported. Islamic system of social security aims at the fulfilment of every possible need of the individual — be it very basic (i.e., food, clothing and shelter) or those secondary in nature (such as education, matrimony, etc).
First of all, Islam emphasises circulation of wealth. According to Islamic injunctions, those who are wealthy must give a small portion of their wealth to those who are less fortunate: “... But righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the Angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and gives his wealth, for love of Him, to kinfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free and keeps up prayer and pays Zakat...” (2: 177)
“... Say: whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer. And whatever good you do, Allah surely is Knower of it.” (2: 215) “Those who spend their wealth by night and day, privately and publicly, their reward is with their Lord; and they have no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (2: 274) “You cannot attain to righteousness unless you spend out of what you love. And what you spend, Allah surely knows it.” (3: 91)
Similarly, there are various sayings of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) describing the significance of benevolence and compassion: “You shall not enter Paradise until you have faith; and you cannot attain faith until you love one another. Have compassion on those who are on earth, and He who is in heaven will have compassion on you. God will show no compassion to him who has no compassion toward all human beings.”
“If a Muslim clothes another Muslim in his nudity, God will clothe him with the green freshness of Paradise; and if a Muslim feeds a Muslim who is hungry, God will give him to eat of the fruits of Paradise; and if a Muslim gives a drink to a thirsty Muslim, God will let him drink from the fountain of Paradise.” “Feed the hungry, visit the sick, and free the captive if he be unjustly bound.”
According to Islamic injunctions, philanthropy is of two kinds: obligatory and voluntary. Obligatory philanthropy consists of Zakat and Zakat-ul-Fitr or Fitrana; whereas, voluntary philanthropy includes Sadaqa and Wakf. Zakat is the principal component of Islamic system of social security.
In simple words, Zakat is the share or portion of wealth that is obligatory upon a Muslim to give to fixed categories of beneficiaries, if the value of his assets is more than a specified limit. The Quran says: “Those who believe, and do good deeds, and keep up prayer, and pay Zakat — their reward is with their Lord...” (2: 277) “And keep up prayers, and pay Zakat, and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.” (24: 56)
It is the responsibility of the Islamic state to collect Zakat and distribute the same among the needy. The significance of Zakat can also be seen from the fact that non payment of the same amounts to waging war against the state. Thus, a nonpayer of Zakat not only incurs the displeasure of God, but is also prosecuted by the state.
Islam has specified the persons to whom Zakat is payable: “(Zakat) charity is only for the poor, and the needy, and those employed to administer it, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth), and (to free) the captives, and those in debt, and in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer — an ordinance from Allah. And Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (9: 60)
An Islamic state is responsible for the well-being of all its subjects who are rendered incapable of looking after themselves, be it by old age, natural disasters, or unfortunate sequence or turn of events. It is bound to help all those who are in genuine need of sustenance. Here it must be mentioned that though Zakat is collected only from the Muslim subjects, non-Muslim subjects too have the right to get support from the state treasury or Bait-ul-Maal if they are in need.
The concept of social security was further developed by the Pious Caliphs. The first Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr, used force as a measure to subjugate those who would not pay up Zakat. During the Caliphate of Hazrat Omar, a department of social security was established, which was the first ever department to be formed for this purpose. The Caliph through social security provided provisions to people in times of famine and drought. He would pay allowance to the poor, aged and disabled; destitute women, be they unmarried or widow; pay off debts of those who were unable to do so themselves; and even paid an allowance to meet the needs of a new born child. Funds were also utilised for the purposes of education.
Islam lays great emphasis on supporting the destitute. The Quran and the Traditions declare in clear words that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to look after the deprived sections of society. An Islamic state is, by all means, a welfare state, wherein social security has been incorporated in order to cater to the needs of its less fortunate and dependent citizens. History shows that in most of the Muslim territories and realms, the government or administration always made sure that the needy were properly looked after and no distinction was ever made on the basis of faith. It was considered a state duty to provide free health care, old age pensions and food, clothing, and shelter for the poor.
It must be mentioned that the first instance of social security in Europe is the scheme of compulsory state insurance which was introduced in Germany in 1883. Germany was followed by Austria and some other countries. Thus the countries in Europe initiated the promulgation of laws in this direction.
In America, except the Workman’s Compensation Act passed in 1908, no significant legislation was enacted until 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed by the Congress. This clearly establishes that Islam’s attitude is much considerate than that of the West as it, centuries ago, conceived the fulfilment of the basic needs of the subjects to be the concern of the state.
THE BBC’s status and stature is unique among the world’s broadcasting organisations. Its range, from orchestras to global news, is astonishing. Most debate about what it does falls into two areas: licence fee and content.
On both issues there exists a degree of consensus. The licence fee, although bluntly regressive, is at least simple and transparent. In time new technology may offer better and fairer payment options. But the technology is not there yet, and the BBC’s charter renewal next year will probably leave things as they are.
On content, the BBC can point to impressive audience figures and international awards as a benchmark for its output, even if repeats still make up an uncomfortably high proportion of programmes on BBC1 and BBC2, while its newer channels such as BBC4 have been disappointing in attracting viewers in the scrum of digital and satellite channels. The BBC’s news arms remain vulnerable to government pressure, but their plaudits are well deserved, such as BBC News 24’s eclipse of Sky News in audience share and Royal Television Society awards.
Yet a debate only rarely conducted is a more important one: what should the BBC do? There is no question that the BBC provides services that would not be supplied through commercial media. It is right, also, that the BBC should be popular as well as innovative. Producing the likes of EastEnders and Radio 1 is important when the licence fee is compulsory, otherwise the corporation could be allowed to wither into a US-style public broadcasting system, narrow and underfunded.
The BBC’s very presence sets a high quality bar for its media rivals. Technological shifts, though, now allow the BBC to enter and compete in arenas that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. The internet now offers the BBC a third arm alongside television and radio, while the success of Freeview has secured its role in a digital future.
The BBC’s embrace of the internet is not the first time it has championed a new medium, since it was a pioneer in television, able to take on the risk of investing in an untried technology. Its role in popularising the internet was not so important, but through it the BBC has won a new worldwide audience.
As the internet becomes increasingly important, it would be shortsighted of the BBC not to increase its online activities. But in doing so it expands into areas where its remit does not run so clearly.
A more pressing danger is the unwitting creation of the BBC’s regional media monopolies. The internet is increasingly eroding the profitability of the local press, and the BBC’s dominance of regional radio is pronounced and growing.
—The Guardian, London