Midnight Oct 5, Pakistan will revert back to its original time, after having forwarded the clock by an hour for about four summer months — an experience that was both controversial and unproductive. Did the changed timings yield the results for which the mechanism was brought about, or was it an exercise to satisfy a few egoist functionaries who were trying to examine its impact?
For all practical reasons, this kind of exercise is aimed at using the maximum amount of daylight to save as much energy as possible. The other reason for adopting such a practice is the geographical location of the country where nights and days vary greatly, such as polar territories and East European countries where white nights and white days occur. The third reason is that this change is necessary in countries where industrial activity is at such a large scale that maximum daylight hours are utilized to save energy.
The practice of advancing timing and reverting back as part of daylight-saving hours is frequent in many countries, and they do it to achieve their objectives and, in fact, do succeed. But in doing so, geographical locations and the principle of setting time according to world standards are kept in view.
There are vast countries such as Russia and the United States where one standard time cannot work. Thus, they create time zones, but that, too, strictly in accordance with international standards, so that global transactions are not affected.
The case of Pakistan is different from these countries. In the first instance, ours is a tropical country where the sun shines for most of the year.
Besides, it is an agricultural country and most of its population is engaged in farm activity. From grazing to harvesting, every activity and its timings is determined by the sun. Hence, it makes no difference to the farming sector whether the grower rises at 6am or goes to bed at 10pm. His life pattern is regulated by sunrise and sunset, whether the clock strikes seven or six is immaterial for him.
The other factor that can be argued for advancing the clocks is the saving of daylight and energy. The question here is that we are not a highly-industrialized nation where an hour of time could mean much. Pakistan has a small basic industry, and the rest belongs to the production of consumer goods. With already a burden of $38 billion debt and no investment coming forth, it is difficult to expand our present industrial potential. In fact, during the last decade or so, we have been creating unemployment in the name of massive privatization, restructuring and downsizing.
The only area where energy saving or the so-called optimum use of daylight, can be discussed is the public sector where Pakistan has an employment of 3.7 million people in a population of 143 million. Out of these public-sector employees, only a little above two per cent can live on their one-job earning, the rest have to take up another job or do some part-time activity. Obviously, the upper-class workforce alone cannot save that much energy for which time can be advanced or reverted back.
The only argument that can go in favour of the experiment is to utilize the maximum amount of daylight and give the working class more leisure time. But in a society where there are only two classes — the rich and the poor — it is difficult to achieve the objective of saving energy by advancing the time by an hour.
If the objective was to enhance productivity, then the experiment was futile. In that case, we will have to re-assess working hours in the light of overall working conditions and international standards. Productivity increases only by improving working conditions, creating a better environment, offering more jobs and by formulating policies that suit our social background, culture, economic potential and values.
In fact, the developed nations have all passed through these phases in one way or the other. But the very fact that they decided to organize themselves took them to the path of progress. For instance, in France a worker had to work for 3,000 hours a year, or about 58 hours a week, which gradually came down to 2,000 hours, or 38 hours a week, by 1990.
The United States allows 22 days a month, and with an average working of nine hours a day, the average working hours are from 168 to 184 hours a month, or 2,200 hours a year.
Britain considers that its people work for longer hours in Europe, i.e., 2,200 hours a year. A Japanese office-goer is quite a hard worker, and hangs on till late hours. But, after attaining progress and feeling that shorter working hours can boost production, it was decided in 1989 to reduce the working hours. It is only now that they have lowered working hours to a 40 per week.
Among the developing nations, the case of Malaysia is unique. It maintains a system by which an average is drawn on a three-week basis, limiting the working hours to 48 hours in a six-day week, and making it mandatory that no one should work for more than 12 hours a day. Malaysia, too, is thinking of reducing the working hours, telling its people that lesser working hours in a better atmosphere can boost productivity, which has been proven by its economic growth in recent years.
The case of Pakistan is no different from these countries, but here the approach towards national issues is whimsical and mostly the creation of self-centred functionaries. After independence, no attention was paid towards creating an infrastructure that could conform to the historical background, economic setup, social structure and the persisting needs of the time. Instead, the policy-makers blindly followed imported ideas to nurture a system that was alien to the land and its requirements. Being basically an agricultural country, nobody paid attention to earth sciences, with the result that to study and advise on such basic issues as salinity and waterlogging, foreign consultants had to be called in.
As far as economic policies are concerned, the mushroom growth of consumerism has brought us to the point where a major part of our national earning goes to debt servicing. As a part of revitalization, over half-a-million people have been rendered jobless in the name of right-sizing, privatization and restructuring during the past ten years.
The question of advancing time for an hour or reverting back emanates from the anomalies our economic system suffers from. If the objective is to enhance productivity, then the best way is to increase the weekly working hours, and give ample time for recreation. If the idea is to save energy, then we should go for a five-day week with longer working hours, and to close everything except the essential services, like health, for two days.
But without considering the impact, the practice of changing time will affect international transactions which are vital for the country and can derail the economy. It has nothing to do with productivity, nor is it going to save any energy.
Midnight Oct 5, Pakistan will revert back to its original time, after having forwarded the clock by an hour for about four summer months — an experience that was both controversial and unproductive. Did the changed timings yield the results for which the mechanism was brought about, or was it an exercise to satisfy a few egoist functionaries who were trying to examine its impact?
