|
| July 01, 2006 | Saturday | Jumadi-ul-Sani 4, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Smuggling of antiquities
Power riots in Karachi
Snags in the privatisation process
Stalling immigration
THE progress of every nation depends on the strength of its institutions. Institutions are collective organizations run on fair rules and principles for promotion of national interest. They straddle across different fields of national life and it is their joint effort which leads to national uplift and growth.
THE new scheme of studies for classes I to XII notified by the federal education ministry on Thursday indicates that our policymakers have at last begun to focus attention on the school education sector. Considering the fact that primary and secondary education is in a mess — and until this is upgraded the standards of higher education will not improve — one hopes that the new scheme will mark the beginning of a new phase. If the political will is there, one hopes that the necessary investment to implement the new scheme will be forthcoming. Thursday’s announcement has some positive aspects. The changes that have been made in the subjects to be taught should rationalise education and equip the students with the skills which are indispensable in the knowledge-driven society of today. The increase in the number of days in an academic year from 170 to 210 is also welcome.
Ostensibly to counter objections to a move that could be perceived as a bid to centralise the education system, it has been made known that the notification has been issued under the Federal Supervision of Curricula, Textbooks and Maintenance of Standards Act, 1976. Earlier reports had conveyed the impression that Islamabad would be controlling every move of the provinces — the schedules of the sessions and the examinations as well as the books and course details. This should be left to each province to decide within the broad framework laid down by the federal ministry. One also hopes that the languages to be taught will not be regulated too tightly because this can prove to be a sensitive issue in some places as was the case in Sindh. The decision should be left to the provincial governments which would do well not to reopen the controversial language issue. The resultant diversity in education all over the country should be welcomed as it will enrich Pakistani society and culture.
What, however, is most disturbing is that nothing has been said about educational standards. The root of the problem is the poor quality of education being imparted to the children in the public sector schools. Improvement can come about only if attention is paid to the textbooks that are taught and the training of teachers. In a positive move the government has in recent years allowed private publishers to bring out textbooks that are used in schools if approved by the relevant authorities. But the textbook boards continue to exist and their publications do not always come up to the mark. Yet their publications are patronised by the government schools, which educate the bulk of the students. It is also a pity that the teachers who determine the future of a child are, by virtue of their temperament and poor knowledge, not always fit to be teaching children. The authorities will be required to take up the issue of teacher training in right earnest. There is need to provide in-service training to teachers to give them an understanding of child psychology and equip them with new teaching methods that have transformed the education scene the world over. In this context, it is important to point out that our biggest failure has been in the field of language teaching. With teachers lacking the skill and knowledge of teaching the art of communication, children are not proficient in any language, including their own mother tongue. The fact is that more research is needed into the language question.
RECENT moves by Islamabad and Washington to develop a protocol aimed at stemming the illegal flow of antiquities out of Pakistan are a positive first step in checking the plunder of the country’s precious cultural heritage. This effort comes in the wake of last year’s interception in the US of a consignment of Pakistani relics shipped from Dubai. The sale or smuggling of national treasures is in clear violation of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was adopted by UNESCO in 1972 and came into force in 1975. Pakistan and the US ratified the Convention in 1976 and 1973, respectively, while the UAE notified its accession in 2001. Controlling transboundary trafficking in antiquities is a global responsibility that ought not to be limited to the countries of origin and destination; transit countries must be equally vigilant.
While increased cooperation from the US is a welcome development, surveillance on the home front remains woefully inadequate and needs to be upgraded at every level. Underfunded and understaffed, the archaeology department is simply incapable, in its current state, of ensuring security at the country’s historical sites, particularly the less prominent locations which are targeted not just by smugglers but also by unscrupulous local ‘patrons’ of the arts. Additional resources are clearly required if on-site pilferage is to be checked. Theft from museums, both large and small, is also a serious concern and can be prevented only through increased surveillance. Also needed is the weeding out of corrupt officials who are said to be in league with traffickers. The biggest question mark, however, hangs over the customs department and its alleged involvement in the smuggling of antiquities, a highly lucrative trade given the worldwide demand for our historical treasures, particularly Gandhara relics. While some artefacts may make their way out of the country as a result of genuine oversight at the air and sea ports, it is unlikely that large consignments can be cleared without the complicity of top customs officials. Before asking for outside help, we must put our own house in order.
HOW long are people in Karachi expected to suffer incessant power outages? The riots that erupted on Wednesday in different parts of the city over prolonged power failures — 40 hours in one locality — only show the seriousness of the situation and the KESC’s inability or failure to bring about some improvement. One does not, of course, condone violence but knowing the growing frustration of the people in this hot and humid summer, can such things be avoided for long? One sympathises with the KESC’s new management which may have inherited a huge backlog of neglected repair, replacement and renovation work, coupled with the current row with Wapda over the disputed tariff question. But the company needs to be more forthcoming in its explanations as to the frequency and duration of loadshedding all over the city. After all, consumers — who are paying exorbitant rates for power they are not getting — have a right to know precisely what it is that is causing the current crisis and what the KESC is doing to bring an end to it.
Despite the prime minister’s meeting last month on the power crisis in Karachi — which was attended by top-ranking government officials as well as the KESC management — there has been little to show for it in terms of improvement in the situation or the adoption of new strategies to bring an early end to the power crisis. It is tragic that in the ongoing blame game between Wapda and the KESC, authorities like Nepra or the government have done little to improve matters. No wonder more and more people are questioning the privatisation of the utility. The government is still responsible for ensuring that citizens have a regular supply of essentials like water and power, and should hold the relevant managements accountable for their repeated failure to deliver these services.
Of all the institutions, the judiciary is the most important. If there is no justice in society, the rich will oppress the poor and the strong will strangle the weak. An unjust atmosphere creates despondency preventing people from working hard and building assets as their possession of these assets can be taken away. The enforcement of laws and protection of the rights to property and honour are essential ingredients of any civilised society.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, there has been pervasive institutional weaknesses which are most evident in the case of the judiciary. People have very little faith in the courts starting from the Supreme Court, High Courts and the District Courts. It all started with Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan case against the dismissal of Khwaja Nazimuddin’s cabinet by Governor-General Ghulam Mohammed in 1953. The Sindh High Court declared the action to be illegal but the Supreme Court headed by Justice Munir termed it to be within the parameters of law and upheld the dismissal under the Doctrine of Necessity.
This judgment laid the foundations for the subsequent abrogations of the constitutional process when Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf declared Martial Laws. The Supreme Court also empowered them to amend the constitutions. Zia and Musharraf used this privilege to issue Provisional Constitution Orders by which they got rid of judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court whom they found to be independent and not pliable.
The delay in deciding cases, especially civil cases which drag on for years and sometimes decades, has made the public cynical about the judicial process in Pakistan. It is perceived to be unable to provide any protection against arbitrary and highhanded actions and decisions of the government functionaries.
The lack of faith in the judicial institutions is part of a pervasive atmosphere of listlessness and apathy which prevails all over Pakistan. The general perception is that merit and rules are irrelevant and what matters is either the power of money or of status. The people generally have a defeatist attitude full of despair and despondency and totally lacking in hope in any future improvements. Even those who are rich and have benefited from the existing dispensation want a better system in which laws are respected and things proceed according to merits. Moreover, in matters like privatisation of major assets, national interest and not ideological beliefs should be the deciding criteria.
The Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) was sold at a throwaway price in a non-transparent manner. There are three snags in the privatisation process in Pakistan which have afflicted almost all the transactions.
Firstly, the reserve price is not properly calculated. The method followed by the Privatisation Commission is basically interested in cash flows without reference to physical assets and in some cases goodwill. In the case of Habib Bank, the evaluation was done by dividend discount method, although the bank is not listed and has never paid any dividend. Moreover, the physical assets of Habib Bank and its goodwill in terms of licence to bank in about twenty foreign countries were totally ignored.
The reserve price of Rs22 billion was judged to be very low in banking circles all over Pakistan. The same happened in the case of PSM whose land, stocks-in-trade, etc., were not properly evaluated.
The second snag is the prequalification of bidders. Bidders must be of good legal status, financially viable and possess management expertise in order to be pre-qualified. In most cases the government has handed over the units to parties whose legal and financial status and whose ability to manage the units are not properly determined. Similarly, in case of PSM, the credentials of all the three bidders in the joint bid were not properly evaluated.
The third snag in the privatisation process is that the bid terms are altered after the acceptance of a bid on fixed terms. In case of Habib Bank, the bid price was allowed to be paid in two years instead of one. Moreover, the government pumped in Rs. 13.4 billion of taxpayers’ money in order to get Rs. 11.2 billion in the first year and a similar amount in the second year. Similarly, in case of PSM, the government has given an undertaking to pay Rs.15 billion for golden handshake to employees who will be declared surplus by the buyers.
In case of the PTCL, the government altered the accepted terms of the bid by Etisalat by allowing it to pay the bid money in five years instead of upfront as it had undertaken while bidding initially and also agreed to other terms demanded by the bidder.
The Privatisation Ordinance 2000 stipulates that 90 per cent of the proceeds will be spent on the reduction of debt and 10 per cent on alleviation of poverty. The government has realised more than Rs. 270 billion from privatisation proceeds since 2000 and in the same period the domestic debt has increased by Rs. 670 billion and foreign debt by Rs. 520 billion.
Hence, privatisation proceeds have been probably utilised for current expenditure in direct violation of the statutory provisions of the Privatisation Ordinance 2000.
The PSM case in the Supreme Court brought three top lawyers — Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, Mr. Hafeez Pirzada and Mr. Khalid Anwar — besides the Attorney-General, to defend the government position. Some of the arguments made by these advocates were rather amusing. Mr. Hafeez Pirzada argued that the Supreme Court should not judge any executive action and its role should be confined to examining questions of law and is precluded from examining facts.
The Attorney-General argued that the Supreme Court should give an interim decision by appointing a commission to examine PSM privatisation process. The point is supreme courts in any country of the world do not appoint commissions but give verdicts on laws as well as facts.
The nine-member bench of the Supreme Court has broken the six-decade old practice of sanctifying all breaches of law which led to people losing faith in the judicial process. Instead of following the beaten track of acquisance and approval, the court has looked into all aspects of the PSM case critically and unsparingly and given its verdict on the basis of its our findings. It has courageously and minutely examined all aspects of the case and decided that the PSM sale agreement is null and void because of numerous deviations from rules and procedure.
It is heartening to see that at long last the Supreme Court has risen to the occasion and rightly told the government that the privatisation of the PSM was neither transparent nor in public interest.
The prime minister, who heads the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation, needs to explain to the nation as to how such a hasty and irregular sale of a gigantic national asset could have taken place and are continuing to take place.
This bold act of the Supreme Court in the Pakistan Steel Mills case should not be a flash in the pan for the nation and all the stakeholders need to take this opportunity to break a new path in national life. All the institutions need to take a cue from this bold decision to strengthen themselves and raise public trust in them.
It is very difficult to alter the behaviour of institutions but sometimes a bold action by one institution can lead to follow on by many others.
One hopes that this decision will prove to be a path breaker. This is merely a narrow white streak in the dark clouds of despair and despondency, defeatism and apathy. We need to take this opportunity to break from our past to blaze a new path for the future.
The writer is a former secretary, planning.
THE Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. All three bodies support some version of immigration reform, and bills have passed both chambers of Congress.
But House Republican leaders have refused to open talks to bridge the gaps between the two versions; they have decided that ironing out the differences within their own party is too onerous. Instead, House leaders have branded the Senate package as a liberal “Kennedy bill” and promised to run against it in the coming midterm elections.
Despite the fact that Congress has already held hearings on immigration for two years, lawmakers plan to hold yet more hearings around the country — especially in the Southern border states where the House’s draconian enforcement approach is electorally potent.
This is irresponsible. About 400,000 Mexicans move to the United States each year, so delay is costly. Moreover, that flow may well increase given trends in the Mexican economy. Mexico is losing out to China in the fight for the US market: Most of Mexico’s shoe industry has shifted to China, and firms such as Sony, NEC and Kodak have moved their Mexican operations to China also.
—The Washington Post