Neglect of a vital road project

ONE of the most vital links — the 51-kilometre Service Road which connects Faisalabad with the Motorway right up to Lahore and Islamabad posses a serious threat to travellers owing to dangerous curves and lack of standard requirements as per the highway manual.

The importance of this road is highlighted by the fact that people prefer to go to Lahore via Motorway instead of the Faisalabad-Sheikhupura Road which is in a poor condition.

The idea of the service road was conceived as a result of the federal government decision to develop Motorway-3 from Faisalabad to Multan.

M-3, comprising six lanes from Pindi Bhattian to Faisalabad with two inter-changes, three fly-overs, 17 under-roads, 25 subways, 15 minor bridges, two service areas, two weighing stations, was required to be completed by August 2000.

Husnaian Construction Company was also given the responsibility for providing engineering, design, construction, operation, management and maintenance of the project for a period of 25 years.

Reportedly, out of the necessity of shifting of heavy construction machinery and material for M-3, the 24-feet-wide Service Road was constructed in a record time of three-and-a-half months at a cost of Rs 160 million and was opened for traffic on Aug 14, 1999.

Later, it was announced by the government that the service road was designed to be developed on both sides of M-3 at a cost of Rs 250 million for facilitating the farming community and the inhabitants of both sides in view of the bitter experience of M-2 (Islamabad-Lahore Junction) which left the people of both sides divided and disconnected.

It was the bad luck of travellers from Faisalabad, Jhang, Toba Tek Singh and southern Punjab, transporters and goods-careers that the M-3 could not take off to link them with Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

As ill luck would have it, this important road strip has consistently been ignored by the agencies concerned at the cost of the lives of commuters. There is absolutely no road security system and other basic facilities.

Increased use of this road strip is necessitated by rapid urbanization and the rise in vehicular traffic, including trucks, buses, and trailers.

Motorists travelling to Lahore via M-2 have to pay an extra Rs 75 per trip for toll tax on service road, M-2 and Lahore bridge. Besides, the extra distance of 65 kilometres, compared to Faisalabad-Sheikhupura Road, increases the fuel cost.

Taking advantage of this situation and exploiting the weakness of travellers from Faisalabad, the contractor of M-3 has reportedly imposed a heavy toll tax of Rs 20 for cars, Rs 40for wagons, and Rs 60 for buses. It is said that neither any formal notification has been issued by the federal government for imposing such a tax, nor can it be levied on such a road strip under the rules.

Not only this, the rate of toll tax is the highest in the country on the basis of distance and quality of the road. Moreover, the contractor is reportedly depriving the exchequer of stamp duty as the toll tax receipts have no indication of receipt stamps. Tax evasion is also taking place.

While unique compared to any road strip in the country, it has not a single oil filling station, service station, auto puncture shop, grocery shop, fruit shop and tea-stall. So much so that not a single edible item is available on this 51-kilometres long strip.

Likewise, there is no dispensary, health centre, kiln house, public call office, telephone exchange or any manufacturing unit, except two traditional ‘Gur’-making spots. Since the commissioning of this strip, no mosque has come up, except for the two old mosques built by villagers two decades ago on the Faisalabad-Pindi Bhatian route.

This strip also has the dubious distinction of not having a single inch of state land or a bus stop or waiting room. One would not even find drinking water on the whole strip.

There are about 200 trees on both sides of this road but most of them were not planted by any government agency. Electric poles on it are without any provision for lighting.

Technically, the road strip is defective. Its direction is not up to the stipulated standard of road building and perhaps this might be the only road in the country without pavements and beams for which no provision has been made so far. Driving on this strip is dangerous. There are at least 11 dangerous curves and to cross them safely is not less than acrobatics. The authorities have never bothered to provide fluorescent warning signs and clear signals for the benefit of road users.

Since its construction agency has repaired the pits dotting the entire strip. It lacks levelling and is bumpy and uneven throughout leading to fatal accidents.

Over two dozen people have lost their lives so far owing to the dangerous curves which confuse the drivers and cause serious mishaps.

A major portion of this road was a notorious hideout of criminals due to its inaccessibility to the law-enforcement agencies. The police of Hafizabad and Faisalabad districts succeeded in providing a sense of security to the motorists, but after 120 pm there is hardly any vehicle plying on this strip.

When contacted, Ch Habibur Rehman, chief engineer of the contractor firm, told this correspondent that M-3 had in fact been given to a consortium of seven firms, namely, “Pakistan Motorway International Consortium Public Limited” on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis. The original cost of this project was Rs 7.29 billion for six lanes which was subsequently reduced to Rs 4.5 billion for four lanes.

He conceded that circumstances had forced them to develop the service road as such as a katcha strip only had been planned by them but the then federal communication minister, Raja Nadir Pervez, forced them to develop a metalled road with black top of 58 kilometres.

He claimed that the toll tax was being charged by them with the prior permission of the National Highways authorities. He claimed that 70 per cent of it was going to NHA and 30 per cent was being retained by the contractor.

He, however, admitted that there was no written agreement available for such a deal and that some of the firms had parted ways and the toll tax was being charged by one firm only, “Husnain Construction”.

About not starting work on M-3, he said that the government had unilaterally revised its original plan and reduced its cost which left no option for us other than to give up the work. He was confident that work would be again entrusted to their firm.

He complained that the Nawaz Sharif government had played a trick on them and they had been forced to enter into an agreement which was against their financial interest.

Elaborating, he said that it was decided that the government would share an equity of 30 per cent for construction of M-3. However, the government trapped them and instead of giving cash equity, compelled them to accept the machinery of Daewoo which had already been used in the construction of M-2 strip.

He said that Daewoo had originally imported used machinery in Pakistan for the construction of M-2. Over 80 per cent of it had already completed its technical life, and it was a mere burden on the exchequer. However, insiders told that the contractor of M-3 had succeeded in getting huge loan on soft-term basis on the security of used machinery and used the same for other projects, making huge profits.

Originally, M-3 was to be completed by August 2000. However, the construction firm abandoned the work after 1999. The military government made a provision for this project and announced that it would be completed within fiscal year 2000-2001. However, the ground realities are different. The work given up by the contractor in Oct 1999, by raising katcha base of about 23 kilometres out of the total length of 52.6 kilometres, is still at the same stage, meaning that the miseries of the travellers of Faisalabad and other cities would continue.

Economic experts said that such indifference towards a high-profile project is nothing less than a crime. The experts of the government may claim that they had succeeded in cutting the cost of M-3 (Pindi Bhatian to Faisalabad) project from Rs 7.29 billion to Rs 4.5 billion by reducing the number of lanes to four. However, they do not realize that by delaying the project not only the commuters suffer but also the government has to sustain huge losses due to non-completion of the project on time and cost escalation.

Infighting among EU states

BRUSSELS: These are difficult times for America’s European allies. All 15 European Union governments may be staunch supporters of US military action in Afghanistan and European members of NATO have certainly taken the historic step of invoking the alliance’s mutual defence clause for the first time.

This tells the world that the September 11 terror attacks on the US were an assault on all 19 NATO members. But look carefully: America’s war against terror has unleashed an unexpected resurgence of factionalism, public squabbling and in- fighting between EU governments and their leaders.

For proof look no further than last week’s EU summit in Ghent. EU leaders, barricaded in a 7th century Abbey and protected by barbed wire fences and hundreds of armed policemen, certainly seemed ready for war but not against the Taliban. Instead their focus was on containing the rising tide of bitter under-currents, ill-disguised tensions and unsung hostilities among summit participants. But without much success.

For many, the renewed burst of intra-EU feuding owes all to Britain, France and Germany, the three countries whose military might makes them America’s special war-time partners. British planes and troops are fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan and Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken up the US cause with the zealousness of a missionary. France, known in the past for its inherent anti-American sentiments, is now keen to offer military support and intelligence. Startling many of his EU partners, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is also demanding a stronger military role alongside the US.

Many in the EU are appalled at the three countries’ focus on national rather than joint EU initiatives. But they recognise that given the absence of an EU defence wing, member states have little option but to act unilaterally.

However EU policymakers say it is inexcusable that French President Jacques Chirac invited his British and German counterparts to a special mini-summit in Ghent just minutes before the start of the larger EU gathering. French diplomats say the three leaders had to discuss important military issues linked to the campaign in Afghanistan which could not be shared with non-participants.

But others are adamant: The encounter put paid to the myth that all EU countries, whatever their size, population or GDP are equal players.

The rising power of British, French and German diplomacy is also evident in the Middle East where foreign ministers from all three countries are taking the lead in trying to end Israeli- Palestinian hostilities. EU debates on a post-Taliban future for Afghanistan have been based on discussion papers drawn up in London, Paris and Berlin. Trying to recapture the initiative, however, EU foreign and security policy chief Javier Solana has now stepped up his own involvement in both Middle East and Afghan peace initiatives.

If the European Union is to be a major actor on the world stage it must speak with a single, clear and forceful voice and back up its words with unified action, an angry European Commission President Romano Prodi recently warned governments, adding: “we are a long way from having the genuinely common foreign and security policy we so badly need. Individual action taken by only a few countries is in the interests neither of the Union as a whole, nor of its individual member states, be they large or small, Prodi insisted.

The Commission should remain vigilant that this did not happen, he warned.

But the Commission chief is in no position to preach either, say others. Ever since the Ghent summit, Prodi has been feuding with Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt for hogging the media spotlight during the current Belgian presidency of the EU.

Prodi has complained vociferously through his spokesman Jonathan Faull at the style of Belgian Presidency press conferences. “The Belgian tradition is to deliver long statements in French, Flemish and sometimes also English which does not leave much time for others to intervene or ask questions,” Faull said, adding: “This is not the way Mr Prodi prefers to operate. Proving that actions speak louder than words, Prodi decided to stay away from Verhofstadt’s post-dinner news briefing in Ghent.

The Prodi-Verhofstadt rift augurs badly for an EU struggling to rush through up to 79 anti-terror initiatives ranging from the introduction of a European arrest warrant to stepped-up security on aeroplanes and airports. Pressure for speedy EU action has increased, with US President Bush asking Prodi and Verhofstadt to undertake another 47 measures to combat terrorism.

Cooperation between Prodi and Verhofstadt will also be essential in the weeks leading up to the next EU summit in Laeken in December when the bloc is expected to launch new discussions on constitutional reform. The two men — and the commission and the presidency — also need to work together to ensure a successful switchover to euro cash next January and keep enlargement negotiations with central and eastern European states on track.

The king of comedy

THE best channel found on cable these days for comedy programming has to be the Paramount. Thankfully, most of the large cable companies offer it and it really is one of those networks where you will probably find something to your liking most of the time. Especially for people who are younger, from the late teens to the mid-30s or so, and for those who have studied abroad or spent some time in Britain or America, Paramount is literally a godsend.

Several major successful shows that you would normally never get to see on cable are available on this channel everyday. Arguably, the best among these is Seinfeld, one of America’s best comedies ever. Some readers might argue here but Seinfeld is far better than any of its competitors, especially the much-watched and talked about Friends. Jerry Seinfeld, who wrote and co-produced this show, is a comedian in real life, a role that he also plays on his show. He’s single and so are his three other friends: the whacky and eccentric Kramer who lives across his apartment; the chubby and balding George, who does not live across his apartment, and has considerably low self-esteem; and Elaine, a typically New York kind of woman — assertive and independent, but only when she wants to be. The show prides itself on being about ‘nothing’. There is no plot and things that might happen in one episode usually have no connection to what might happen in later shows.

Seinfeld has a very New York feel about it, and any one who has lived there would know that this is one of its defining traits, in terms of the way the show deals with issues. It would be pretty useless to talk any more about how good the show is because a review like this cannot possibly capture all the things that make so many people like this programme. Perhaps, one very basic reason for its popularity, and not just in America but among audiences in many other countries would have to be that you can often relate to the characters. A lot of independent working women, who study abroad and have moved back, now working in Islamabad, Lahore or Karachi might be able to relate to Elaine. And probably many men in their late-20s or early-30s, who want to settle down but are too scared of making a commitment could very well see themselves in Jerry or one of his male friends. In any case, the best thing would be to tell your cable operator to get Paramount and watch Seinfeld everyday at 9.30pm.

Also to watch out on Paramount is the Tonight show with Jay Leno whose very hilarious monologue before his guests come on (and who people like Shehkar Suman have copied, but with very bad results, for their own talk shows) is something to be savoured before going to bed every night. Jay Leno is followed by the equally, if not more, funny Conan O’ Brian who has finally managed to step out of the shadow of his former mentor and now network colleague Leno.

One particularly funny show recently by O’Brian had a segment where the talk show host went separately to the homes of female celebrities, all of whom had previously come on his show. He goes with flowers and asks each woman, separately of course, for a date, citing the chemistry that he thinks was created when the woman was a guest on his show. The celebrity, as expected, reacts as if O’Brian has gone mad and her look is basically of the type: “Oh God what a loser this guy is to show up like this”. The problem with describing such things is that they never sound funny on paper, you have to see them, which is why people who want to watch some really good comedy should tell their cable operators to get them the Paramount channel.

Other programmes on this channel that are worth watching include other critically-acclaimed hits like Frasier (every day at 11.30 at night), Wings (only on Sundays), Married With Children (also only on Sundays, Dharma and Greg (everyday), The Simpsons (every day at 10pm), News Radio (every day at 9pm) and Just Shoot Me (on Sundays). Of course, the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Late Night with Conan O’Brian come every night at midnight and 1am, respectively. — OMAR R. QURAISHI