CONTENTS:
0 Announcements
0 The Bane of Pakistan’s Sovereignty
By Dr. Khalil Ahmad
0 The Sons of Leviathan
By Jim Fedako
0 Issues of the Month: Judiciary’s Moment of Redemption;
and, Reconciling with the NRO
0 From the National Press
0 Good News
0 Letters to FreePakistan
==================================================================
Quote of the Month:
No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe when the legislature is in session.
[Mark Twain]
==================================================================
Thank you for subscribing to FreePakistan Newsletter!
Free Pakistan, a monthly newsletter, exists for the promotion of limited government, rule of law, protection of property rights, market economy, individual freedom, and private initiative. Its vision is a free and prosperous Pakistan; for only such a Pakistan can contribute positively to the creation of a free and prosperous world.
The Newsletter is an affiliate of Alternate Solutions Institute, Lahore, Pakistan, http://asinstitute.org, the first free market think tank of Pakistan.
The Alternate Solutions Institute is a registered, non-profit, non-political, non-governmental, educational and research organization. Its mission is to promote a limited responsible government in Pakistan under the rule of law protecting life, liberty, and property of all of its individual citizens without any discrimination.
For more information, comments and contributions, contact the institute at info@asinstitute.org
Website: http://asinstitute.org
Free Pakistan URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreePakistan
Subscribe: FreePakistan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: FreePakistan-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
==================================================================
DISCOVER YOUR POLITICAL LEANINGS! World's Smallest Political Quiz
Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
==================================================================
PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY
What is Philosophy of Liberty? A screensaver by Lux Lucre and Ken Schoolland explains it.
Download and install it. http://www.free-market.net/rd/321907219.html ; http://www.jonathangullible.com
==================================================================
Announcements
Article: AN NRO FOR ME ALSO
Pakistan Observer of October 22, 2007, published an article, An NRO for me also. The article pleads that the recently promulgated National Reconciliation Ordinance, which grants amnesty to public office holders only, be made available to every Pakistani.
Here is the link to the article in Pakistan Observer:
http://www.pakobserver.net/Articles02.asp
Here is the link to the article in The Post:
http://thepost.com.pk/Arc_OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=124960&catid=11&date=10...
Article: MYTH OF ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM
The News International of October 21, 2007, in its Political Economy section, published an article, Myth of Economic Imperialism. The article argues that the notion of economic imperialism is but a myth. Indeed, it is our own being that we need to analyze and evaluate first. For any sane person, it is quite difficult to understand how the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) force us to be exploited! How the United States or the European Union or the G-7 or the World Trade Organization (WTO) compels us to become its stooges? How can they exploit us, unless some of us are not prepared to be their partners in such endeavors? If such exploitation is taking place, we have only ourselves to blame for it -- we should take the responsibility on our own shoulders rather than blaming others.
Here is the link to the article:
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2007-weekly/nos-21-10-2007/pol1.htm#4
Article: PAKISTAN: A HOPE ON ITS DEATHBED
The Post on October 11, 2007, published an article, Pakistan: a hope on its deathbed. The article argues that present circumstances require that the Supreme Court of Pakistan must fulfill its legal and constitutional duty to protect not only the provisions but the spirit of the Constitution also. If it does not do so and does not pave the way for the rule of the right, we will be going to have another 60 or 160 years' rule of the might in Pakistan.
Here is the link to the article:
http://thepost.com.pk/Arc_OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=122830&catid=11&date=10...
Article: WISDOM OF A CHINESE SAGE
The Post of October 04 and 05, 2007, published an article, Wisdom of a Chinese Sage, in two parts. The article presents a selection of Lao Tzu' views especially on governance. Lao Tzu is considered first of the libertarian thinkers, and his thought is rated as radical libertarian creed.
Here is the link to the first part:
http://thepost.com.pk/Arc_OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=121595&catid=11&date=10...
Here is the link to the second part:
http://thepost.com.pk/Arc_OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=121796&catid=11&date=10...
Article: ECONOMIC PROGRESS, STABILITY ARE KEY TO PAKISTAN'S FUTURE
On September 30, 2007, The China Post Taiwan published an article by Dr. Khalil Ahmad. It discusses that President General Musharraf and former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif all claim they should be given another chance. The question is whether any of our discredited potential leaders can see that the economic tools such as property rights (including intellectual property), lowering trade barriers and cutting corruption and bureaucracy, are their only hope of saving the country and staying in power.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/2007/09/30/124682/p1/Economic%2Dpr...
==================================================================
THE BANE OF PAKISTAN’S SOVEREIGNTY
By Dr. Khalil Ahmad
It is the rule of law alone which hinders the rulers from turning themselves into the worst gangsters.
[Ludwig von Mises, Austrian Economist, 1881-1973]
He was born in Pakistan, and was brought up for public life by the military elite of Pakistan. He was a businessman turned into a politician by them. He was corrupt, laundered his illegal money. He was a liar who concealed the facts, didn’t speak the whole truth. He was a weak person who could not tolerate the dark dungeons he was put into by his regime’s over-throwers. He compromised his staying in his own country for an exile. All these ‘allegations’ may or may not be true. But he was a twice-elected prime minister of Pakistan. Does it matter? No! What matters is: wasn’t he a citizen of Pakistan? He was and is still a bona fide citizen of Pakistan.
His case is typically a Pakistani one. First, it involves ethical standards. Second, it pertains to the domain of law. Third, it overarches the political boundaries.
Had he shown any regard for his benefactors with whom he is stated to be in a certain understanding, or had he had any moral substance not to defy the understanding he talks about, be it written or verbal, with any individual or authority as is stated, he would not have been in such an unfortunate position! Regardless of the facts and sure we don’t know would they ever be made public, what we know for sure is that there was a certain understanding between the three parties: the then rulers of Pakistan, the Saudi ruling family, and he and his family. All of his acts and behavior related with his homecoming weaken his position. No doubt, he should have abided by the deal that saved his and his family’s skin. Propriety demands that he should have stayed outside Pakistan till the completion of ten years’ terms as agreed on paper. He was morally bound to keep the word. But he didn’t, and damaged his moral stature.
It may be argued that it concerns his person only as it was up to him to behave or not to behave morally. But, as he is a public figure, a politician, a leader of a political party, he cannot be absolved in such a manner. It is for the people, before whom he is accountable, to judge and censure his person and personality. The government has nothing to do with his moral standing. Yeah, his adversaries are free to take political mileage out of his lapses.
However, if he told a lie before the court, or concealed the truth or told the half truth, it is for the court to take cognizance of this act of him. It needs to be mentioned here that since he himself knocked at the court’s door for justice, the court is authorized to take up his lying and its implications for its judgment that provided him relief. What is important here is to differentiate between those moral lapses which are not cognizable offence, and those which are. If he would have lied in public about his deal or about the details of this deal, or defied his understanding with the two other parties, and not approached the court, the case has simply been a moral one, and only earned a bad name to him. Sure, it was not cognizable and thereby not punishable either in that case.
It means that law and morality are two different domains. No doubt, he lost in the domain of morals. But in the domain of law, his case is strong enough. The deal or understanding that the three parties reached was brought to the court also, and was dismissed outrightly. It must have been. Common sense has it that any deal, agreement or understanding is done between more than one parties. The one that is signed by one party only is merely a promise to one’s own self, or to other parties. It has only moral validity. It can never attain a legal status. It was probably on this ground that he came to the court, and the court maintained his petition.
Also, particularly in his case, the law of the land is supreme. When the said deal was settled, written and signed, the aggrieved party was under sentence. Even if it is maintained that the deal was done freely and willingly, under no duress, and it was to his and his family’s obvious benefit, probably no court of law would admit it as evidence. The fact of his being in the custody of those with whom he reached the deal is enough evidence to invalidate any written deal, agreement or understanding regardless of the signatures put on it either by one or two or all the parties. Suppose, any court of law would have been approached by all the parties for signing it before the court to endow it with a legal status, had the court allowed such a thing is out of question.
Another important point that is being made and raised by many convinces one of the supremacy of the law of the land. It is that no agreement contrary to the fundamental rights ensured in the Constitution of Pakistan can be contracted. These rights have an over-riding quality to them. More than that, the said deal contracted both an unconstitutional and an unlawful ‘demand’ on the part of the aggrieved party: that they would live in exile for a specified period of time. So the deal that was from its very beginning illegal holds no water at this moment also.
When taken on its face value, the deal states that it be kept confidential. But after the filing of a petition by the aggrieved party in the Supreme Court, the government made the deal public by submitting its copies before the court. It was the first breach of what was government of Pakistan also morally bound to abide by. But morals of the government are never a subject of discussion. Only the morals of its functionaries matter, and they are always utterly immoral, and more so in the absence of rule of law. We judge government only in terms of the provisions of the Constitution and law of the country.
Thus the whole case hinges on the point of law. That amounts to saying that since it pertains to the domain of law, it must be viewed in that light first and foremost. That the highest court of the country has already judged that it is an inalienable right of every citizen of Pakistan to come and remain in Pakistan, and likewise it was his constitutional right to come, remain and live in Pakistan. He was not refused visa by the visa consulate of Pakistan, and was thus not having recourse to a court to enter Pakistan. If he were not a citizen of Pakistan, the court must never have entertained such a petition.
The judgment of the court was a lawful boost to his plans whatsoever they were. It was no business of the court to see why he wanted to come to Pakistan. But the civilian-cum-military government was wary of his political plans whatsoever they were. Our concern is that whether the government honored the judgment of the apex court or not. Even the court would not be divulging in digging up the reasons; rather they would only be determining whether the judgment was honored and implemented or not.
Now, as the circumstances suggest, even if he, while in Saudi Arabia, submits or is forced to submit an affidavit in the court to the effect that he did go to Saudi Arabia willingly and is submitting this affidavit under no duress, will it be admissible to the court is a matter of no debate. The facts of the matter are so known by way of eye-witnesses, video-films, TV footages, etc, that it is already established unequivocally that his was an unwilling throwing out of Pakistan. So his kidnapping/deporting to Saudi Arabia is a flagrant violation of the highest court’s judgment. As the judgment derives its validity from an article of the Constitution, the Article 15, his kidnapping/deporting is in fact a defiance and insubordination of the Constitution.
Also, as his case overarches the political boundaries, and as it involves the ruling kings and princes of another country who seem to play an active role in his kidnapping/deporting, it further complicates the issues. First, whether that deal, the nature of which was discussed above in detail, allows another country’s government to indulge in such an act! Second, whether that deal permits our government to behave like this! This raises another question of paramount importance: which law other than the Constitution of Pakistan is supreme in and for Pakistan?
Before coming to these questions, the issue of sovereignty may be dealt with briefly. It’s being pointed out that the uncalled for role of Saudi government has dented Pakistan’s sovereignty. That it was a blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan and that too at the behest of Pakistani government. For one, if it is at the behest of Pakistani government, it’s no interference, then. But, is that so simple? In case of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where there is no constitution or higher law and where the will of the rulers is the law of the land, it may have been so simple and a non-issue. Not for us in Pakistan. We have a constitution here. No matter how imperfectly it is implemented, it is there, and dictators too ultimately come to it to take refuge and salvage their ships.
What is sovereignty? Generally, it is exercise of authority by a government of an independent state free from external control. Without going into the details of this handy definition, it may be asserted that both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are independent states. As far as the exercising of their authority is concerned, it is determined by the law of the land. Or by tradition as is the case with Saudi Arabia where authority is exercised by the royal family. Their authority is absolute in that no law defines or limits it. But in case of Pakistan, the rulers in government derive their authority from the Constitution. It defines and limits their powers. The rulers in Pakistan, whatever is their brand, have no absolute authority.
Hence, for Pakistan the issue of sovereignty is the issue of the supremacy of the Constitution. If the government abrogates the Constitution, the sovereignty will be lost to the whims of the rulers. Thus, the Constitution of Pakistan provides us with a point of reference to see whether in his case of kidnapping/deporting to Saudi Arabia the sovereignty of Pakistan was staked or not.
No sane person would allow himself to disbelieve that a certain citizen of Pakistan was allowed to be kidnapped/deported to another country. Of course, to achieve its ulterior motives Pakistani government acted very enthusiastically. Leave aside the intricacies of sovereignty’s definition; it is evident that the sovereignty of Pakistan was challenged by the country’s own government when it defied the orders of the highest court and violated the Constitution of the country. Not only that, it invited another government to do the same.
Once again, whatever is the status of that deal of his - was it supreme to the Constitution of Pakistan? Firstly, is that deal so overriding that in order to fulfill the demands of that deal the officials of another country are free to take back a citizen of Pakistan to their country about whom the Supreme Court of Pakistan had already made a seven-member judgment to let him come and remain in Pakistan? Is that deal based on such an international law that abrogates the higher laws of independent states and allows taking back of citizens of a country by any country even in the absence of mutual extradition treaties?
Secondly, does that deal give any legal, constitutional leverage to the government of Pakistan to let another country to take back its citizens without having their consents or without fulfilling the legal requirements while no mutual extradition treaty is in force? No, simply not. In Pakistan the supreme law is its Constitution. Legally speaking, no deal, agreement, or contract can be made which is directly or indirectly violative of the provisions of the Constitution and fundamental rights ensured in it. Its violation means the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. But how unfortunate that the deal that Nawaz Sharif and brother reached has been made so sacred that to save it the government of Pakistan has staked everything, be it the Supreme Court’s judgment, Constitution of the country, or the sovereignty of Pakistan! Isn’t Pakistan heading to be another Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
==================================================================
THE SONS OF LEVIATHAN
By Jim Fedako
[Jim Fedako is a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, USA.
This article was first appeared on http://www.mises.org on 10/2/2007.]
Robert Higgs identified the Leviathan as an opportunistic beast, using crises — real or manufactured — to expand its realm, to slither its tentacles into the remaining halls where large amounts of liberty are found. Any national or international event can be spun into the need for more government, more interventions, and more intrusions of its slimy appendages.
We have seen this time and time again, as the Leviathan strikes while the masses tremble. Somehow we are calmed by the sight of this powerful yet ugly serpent-like creature, believing that it is only grasping what it needs in order to protect us, and praying that it will release its grasp once the crisis passes.
However, government never willingly releases its hold of liberty. No, and in fact, any taste of the liberty that remains in possession of the masses simply whets government's appetite for more. That which we give up in a momentary shudder of fear is gone forever.
Nevertheless, crises never seem to arise often enough for those wanting more power. Therefore, government will manufacture events, or spin the innocuous or unrelated incident into a crisis, whenever it desires more of the people's liberty. While Higgs's scholarship shows how this occurs at the national level, it also occurs at the local level as the sons of the Leviathan seek their own bits of power, the tidbits dropped from the mouth of the great beast.
Not four miles from my home is an old bridge that captivates many. Folks like the bridge's style, simple beauty, and setting. The bridge, a registered national historic place, spans a section of the Olentangy River that still holds its natural qualities — a stretch of the water designated as a state scenic river.
Local and state officials — led by the county engineer, an elected official — wanted to tear down this bridge years ago. They regularly cited its age, restricted traffic flow, and possible structural deficiencies as reason to replace it with a modern — though institutional-looking — cement span. In opposition, local residents and other nature lovers have fought government all along. They have used every possible means to stop the destruction of their favored bridge. In fact, they even appealed to laws that protect areas designated as state scenic rivers and bridges deemed historic — anything to stop the state (you just have to love it when laws impede the state and its local minions).
The two groups — bridge lovers and government officials — locked horns, with neither side gaining ground. But, that all ended with one tragic event: the collapse of a bridge in Minneapolis. Finally, a crisis.
Within days, the county had re-evaluated the structure of the bridge and determined that it was indeed deficient. Well, the bridge wasn't actually deficient, but there was some slight evidence that overweight vehicles may have continued to cross it. So, they closed it down.
After years of battles, it only took one national event to change the balance of power at the local level: government had won. No voices arose from bridge lovers in defense of their span. No, they simply rolled over in the face of the fear; they blinked. And with that, years of battle ended, and their bridge is gone.
It certainly appears that local governments used the timing of a national tragedy to pursue their goals. The closing of the bridge was now an issue of safety, and government always claims a monopoly on the ability to provide safety. And, more important, the majority of local citizens have come to agree with government on this.
OK, so this incident is not really a matter of negative rights, but it does show how even local governments take advantage of any situation, large or small. And how local residents willingly concede that government is security.
More to the point: in June of 2001, a local resident was arrested for possession of pipe bombs, assault rifles, etc. This individual and his fellow conspirators were bombing and shooting in the state park not seven miles from my home, in an outlying suburban area. The man had strong ties to national groups that advocate violence as a means to achieve political ends.
Even though there was strong evidence to believe that harm would result from the groups' activities, and given that this all occurred after Oklahoma City, it is hard to imagine today that the arrest was only considered minor local news. The Leviathan could not advance, not yet anyway.
A few years later, another local resident blustered about bombing a local mall. There was never any evidence that he possessed the wherewithal to execute his plans. Yet, post-9/11, this arrest achieved much greater attention. The Leviathan was allowed to advance because a majority of local residents have accepted — no, embraced — the belief that only government can provide safety in a crisis, and that safety is more valuable than liberty.
Finally, there are the debates over how much money is required by the various local governments to protect us in the event of a major natural disaster. Katrina has become the cry for more funding, because many believe that there can never be too much money spent on safety.
Given this, the city administrator rolls out the most fantastic scenario of catastrophe and emphatically states, "We have to be ready for this." Not to be outdone, the police and fire chiefs one-up the administrator and each other with scenarios bordering on the bizarre, claiming that "the city must be ready for these also." Then, in unison, council members and local media race to bring attention to the need for more government, and the local Leviathans smile.
Of course, money is the solution, and more is always needed. However, dare question them and they will scream, "Katrina, Katrina, Katrina!" The crisis drives it all.
So, we have a closed bridge, reduced liberty, and additional taxes. Yet, many claim that we are safer for all of this. But, are we safer, or is government safer? I venture to say that the local Leviathans are smug and more comfortable in our need for them. We, on the other hand, are in more danger than ever of losing the remnants of liberty that we still hold in our possession.
We must be vigilant with regard to the great Leviathan, as well as its local sons. They all exist solely to rob the liberty we hold dear.
==================================================================
Issue of the Month: Judiciary’s Moment of Redemption
17TH AMENDMENT
[Prof Liaquat Samma, Isra University, Hyderabad]
If one reads the 17th Amendment, one finds that it is not an amendment by any definition. To amend means to improve by changing some articles of the Constitution. This amendment was made for one general who had violated his oath as well as the Constitution.
The language of the amendment reads like an office order of the chief executive, the post that is not even recognised by the Constitution. It contradicts the existing provision about election of the president, forming the basic structure of the Constitution.
Referendum means asking a question of the general masses for any political issue that needs to be answered by parliament The answer to the question can never be presumed as an election. An election is a choice between two people at least. Hence it is just an answer but no election.
Furthermore, the amendment did not improve anything but harmed and damaged the Constitution. It seems that the parliamentarians, without thinking logically or lawfully, blindly followed the general. No constitution of the world can have such an amendment accepted as lawful.
It also contradicts the already existing article about election and is discriminatory in nature. It violates the fundamental rights of all working officers to be elected president in the same way by referendum. It proves that most of the parliamentarians either don’t know how to amend their Constitution or boldly violate its spirit by inserting such contradictory, improper, and unlawful amendments.
They intentionally block the way of approaching the Supreme Court by inserting such unlawful clauses as it can’t be challenged in the court. This unjust and unlawful amendment should be reviewed by the Supreme Court and be declared void under Article 8 (1) which states that any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights shall be void. It also disrupts the basic structure of the Constitution by violating the election clause. [Dawn]
JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE
[T Mallick, Lahore]
Our chequered judicial history reveals that it is the inner conscience of men and not their declared religion which determines their role as judges. Men like Justice Cornelius, Justice Bhaghwandas, Justice Shakirullah Jan, Justice Raza Khan, Justice Wajihuddin and Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry have earned the respect and admiration of people because they chose to listen to their inner conscience as others succumbed to pressure. We have recently witnessed the disappointing verdict from the superior judiciary on Musharraf’s candidacy, which shows that despite the stellar example set by the abovementioned judges, the Doctrine of Necessity lives on. [Daily Times]
LAWYERS’ MOVEMENT
[Gangly Khan, Mandi Bahauddin]
SINCE emergence of Pakistan, army generals dominated state affairs and did not allow democracy to take roots. A group of intelligence agencies-groomed politicians were organised to support military rules. These people grew as industrialists and millionaires by exploiting national resources.
Be it military or civil rule, members of this self-serving group are found around the power seat holding important political and government appointments like ministers, chief ministers, governors and other top posts in the administration and the judiciary.
Every government paid lip-service to democracy and uplift of masses but practically they left no stone unturned to loot public by raising false slogans. Dispensation of justice at lower level was victim of malpractices.
Rulers for their own interest fragmented assemblies and disfigured state institutions. They tailored laws to prolong their tenures in power for promoting their interests. Welfare of masses was never on their agenda. Now-days the same practice is being repeated. Laws and rules are being enacted/changed for re-electing a general in uniform as president by assemblies second time in their tenure which is a gross violation of the Constitution. If such a state of affairs continues unabated, the country will suffer and face disgrace.
So with this background in mind, lawyers thought an opportune time has come to launch this movement when the president suspended the chief justice for not accepting government pressure on performance of judicial duties. Preservation of rule of law, supremacy of the Constitution, restoration of democracy and bringing an end to military rule for ever were set as objectives.
Some lawyers from the very start attempted to block the path of this great historical movement and they fell as casualties in the process. Blackening the face of an advocate is also part of such casualties. [Dawn]
OPPORTUNE MOMENT
[Dr Azhar Mukhtar Sindhu, Bahawalpur]
Once again the Supreme Court has allowed General Musharraf to hold the dual office of President and COAS. Despite great expectations from the newly revived judiciary it looks like nothing has changed since Justice Munir. The ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ still seems to reign supreme in the country.
We as a nation should realise that if liberties and freedoms are to be won, then the people must stand up for their rights and show continued resistance. Winston Churchill once said “a pessimist sees trouble even in opportunity, while an optimist sees opportunity in each trouble”. Pakistanis should heed his advice. [Daily Times]
THE VERDICT
[Khurram Jamal, London]
The Supreme Court's decision is a matter of disappointment for the whole nation. The bench has missed a golden opportunity to unshackle itself from the military and the executive. It is a universally acknowledged fact that the members of the civil and military bureaucracy cannot take part in politics until after the expiry of two years following their retirement from service. Unfortunately, this is an unknown reality for our judges.
At the same time, I strongly condemn the politicians who have provided legitimacy to the military chief to become president. [The News]
SUO MOTU ACTION ON TRAFFIC JAM
[S. Bukhari, Karachi]
Recently watching a case proceeding in the Supreme Court, Karachi registry, on public interest issue, i.e. traffic jams, attended by top echelon of city officials and the city nazim was a pleasing experience for me.
The city mandarin seemed to have burnt midnight oil as it was evident from their well-prepared and detailed explanations. Each department passed the buck to the other and observers were at a loss to understand as to who was steering the city affairs.
The speech delivered by the city nazim, earned him applause from the bench. At one stage he even educated the bench by retorting that management of traffic was out of his purview and it was the sole responsibility of the police to control and manage the road traffic.
After watching these proceedings, I have some suggestions to make so that such proceedings on issues of public interest can be made more objective:
a. The cases of suo motu action may be televised live to enable people to watch full discussion taking place in court room.
b. The public may be invited to help the court by their suggestions through email or by other suitable means. Web site may be created where people should send their feedback.
c. The court proceedings must start in accordance with the prescribed timings.
d. Lengthy discussions consume much of the court’s time and people whose cases are on a regular cause list cannot be heard due lack of time and they have no other choice except to take the next date for their petitions. The possibility of conducting suo motu cases on Saturday or even on Sunday may be evaluated.
e. There is exclusive space for judges and lawyers where they spend break time and take refreshment. The petitioners and visitors are human beings too and some space may be earmarked for them where they can take refreshment against payment during break.
f. The people who follow their petitions in person must be treated with utmost respect as they cannot afford exorbitant fees of lawyers and they have already drained their limited resources.
g. The petitioner after getting relief from the court faces harassment as staff demands gratification. People must be saved from this unhealthy practice.
h. There were no lavatories for public use in the building. Toilets adjoining with the mosque in the premises were found in highly bad state and heavily smelling. In fact, these were being used as street toilets. [Dawn]
SEPT 28 VERDICT
[Natalya Kamal, Islamabad]
An American chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously wrote in 1928:
"A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed."
Our constitutional history is replete with cases which are negative reference points. They serve the important process of becoming educated in what is not the law. Another judgment is added to this category. The saving grace is the three dissenting opinions appealing to the intelligence of a future day. Let us hope this appeal is not lost. [The News]
CALL FOR CRITIQUE
[Syed Sayef Hussain, Islamabad]
Friday’s verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, by majority count, has thrown the whole nation into utter shock. The commonest senses of common people are finding it difficult to gulp the decision handed out by the apex court.
Anyway, any decision once given is a public document. The public has all the rights to discuss the pros and cons of a decision according to the merits of a case. The Supreme Court’s decision should, rather must, be brought to intense public scrutiny. More seminars, symposia and public discussions and media discussions must be held, and newspaper articles must be written on the merits and demerits of the decision, keeping pace with the public interest in the case.
Only such lively and constructive discussions will help the concerned quarters realise that the public is concerned on such issues, and they are no more ready to take such seemingly unacceptable decisions lying down. I hope the media would assist the civil society in proving that decisions made in the public interest do not go without intense public scrutiny.
[Daily Times]
SEPT 28 VERDICT
[Hassan Ali, Islamabad]
This refers to the Supreme Court verdict announced on September 28 regarding the holding of a dual office by Gen Musharraf . As a concerned Pakistani, following are the questions which have been agitating my mind, and those of others too, ever since the judgment was announced and the petitions declared non-maintainable:
(1) If the petitions were non-maintainable, why did the honourable judges of the Supreme Court kept on hearing them for around two weeks and didn't throw them out in first hour, first day or even first week?
(2) Was the court not conscious of the fact that since the presidential elections were just round the corner, dragging the proceedings for so many days and then eventually turning the petitions down on technical grounds would deprive the petitioners of any other opportunity to seek any appropriate redress from the court before the elections?
(3) Why did the second senior-most judge on the bench say that the doctrine of necessity had been buried for ever and thus gave false hopes to people when he was going to reject the petitions on the grounds of non-maintainability?
(4) If maintainability was the issue, then why did the judges not instruct the lawyers from both sides to keep their arguments limited to that issue only?
(5) What has been the use of sacrifices of all those people who laid their lives during the movement for seeking independence of the judiciary through the restoration of the chief justice, if the judiciary, after becoming independent, was going to deliver such a judgment on an issue which was so fundamental to our national life? [The News]
==================================================================
Issue of the Month: Reconciling with the NRO
AN NRO FOR ME ALSO
By Dr. Khalil Ahmad
[This article was published first in Pakistan Observer on October 22, 2007, and then in The Post on October 25, 2007.]
Dear Mr President! I am eager to appreciate your efforts to effect national reconciliation. I know you first tried the ‘stick’ and now it is the ‘carrot’. I feel really thankful to you for this much-needed ordinance that will absolve Pakistan, among other misnomers, from the guesstimative reports of Transparency International, and we will be a corruption-free state. But as my humble reason sees, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) has a flaw, which if our courts come to take cognizance of, they will be making use of it to annul it. There are also a number of bad-natured people who will be raising a hue and cry that the NRO is discriminatory, but in actuality what they want is its benefits accruing to them as well.
It is because of these misapprehensions that I request you to remove this flaw, otherwise a great opportunity of reforming Pakistan will be lost. Personally, I too feel that giving the NRO absolution only to public office holders is unjust. Be generous. Be forgiving. Remove this flaw and make the NRO absolution available to every citizen of Pakistan. You cannot imagine how immeasurably it will transform society. We will all be equal.
I realise you want to be convinced why not confine it to public office holders only. Here are some arguments why it should be available to everyone. First, in that case it will be termed ‘national’ in the truest sense of the word. Second, it is not the public office holders only who need to reconcile, every citizen of Pakistan needs to reconcile with one another and with you especially. Third, it will make the NRO court-proof also.
In addition, I would like you to ponder over my personal story, which I am sure will convince you of the urgency of removing this flaw from the Ordinance. Take this not as the story of one Pakistani alone, but as you are already well aware of the fact, it is the story of more or less every Pakistani.
I am a poor person like my parents were. They did what they could to make me an educated person so that I could live well. But I was caught using unfair means in the matriculation examination. That was the end of my education. Now my father got me the job of a helper at a general provision store. But soon the store-owner found items, money and me disappearing, and fired me. At the store, I learned an important thing: the amount of money that I got from the store job at the end of a very laborious month was much less than what could be made by stealing and defrauding. After all, at the end of the day what we come to have is money!
After a number of jobs here and there and firings, I started my own business. Another factor that forced me to do something of my own was that when after being caught I was sent to the police, my income was to be shared with them for nothing. So you see I was just helpless. My last job proved to be a turning point: the owners withdrew a sizeable amount from their bank to disburse salaries to their employees. I knew that and made a plan with two of my friends to grab that money. But we were caught and a big chunk of that money went not to the rightful owners, but to the police.
Now you know it takes time to be successful in every field, but finally we were at that. I told my people that I had got a job in Islamabad. As yet, we were not very good; sometimes it was a jackpot and at other times a loss since the police had to take its share of the booty no matter what the adventure was worth. However, I got our home renovated, built the upper portion, bought a colour television, VCR, tape recorder, washing machine, mobile phones and things like that. But my dreams were yet to be fulfilled.
I decided to take more risks to achieve my goals faster. Instead of thievery, we started doing robberies. It needed some homework, but was quite paying. Soon I was able to buy a reasonable home in a posh locality. My people shifted there. Now I flourished and recruited a number of disciples also. They were paying a percentage to me. I bought another one-kanal plot in the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), helped my younger brothers start their businesses, and was looking for good families to marry my sisters. All was going well, but during a bank robbery a guard shot at me. I too fired at the guard and he died. My leg was injured, thus I got caught. I am under trial and in jail now where I read about this NRO. It was such good news that I thought of writing to you.
My beloved President! You are known for your concern for poor people like me and this made me request you to remove the flaw that makes the NRO liable to be criticised by all and sundry. You know I am yet to build a house on that one-kanal plot and one needs so many things to transform a house into a home. I want to send my parents for Hajj, and arrange the marriages of my sisters. My brothers too expect me to help them expand their businesses. Being the eldest son, I have so many responsibilities on my shoulders to take care of.
In view of the above, I most humbly request making the NRO equally available to everyone. How nice it will be for all Pakistanis, whose circumstances are not much different from mine. How gracious this act of yours will be for the whole nation! We will all live happily ever after after the enactment of this universal NRO. When I imagine a Pakistan cleansed by a people’s NRO, I see a paradise befalling our earth.
But as I am good to everyone, I fear that even this baptised NRO may have confusions and complexities for so many people whose circumstances will not be taken care of by its wording. So I suggest allowing all the citizens of Pakistan to customise this NRO to suit their needs, interests, likes and dislikes. Ah, I feel extremely happy with this idea of a customised NRO. No doubt, it will prove a panacea for all the ills afflicting our society. Above all, it will reconcile all those with your person and paraphernalia who bear grudges against your rule on this or that pretext.
Yours in customised national reconciliation.
PS: Why confine its benefits to the limits of a time period, make it timeless. It will make us all live in eternal reconciliatory state of bliss and beatitude.
YOUR PETITION INVOKING NRO
By Dr. M Zaheer
[Here is a response to the above article. Ed]
Dear Dr. Ahmad:
Your petition filed under NRO and addressed to General or President, which ever you prefer, has been referred to me for a review and response.
First of all you have misconstrued NRO. It in fact is for the benefit of Notorious and Rehabilitated Outlaws which unfortunately you are not. Being head of an intelligence agency (for national security reasons I cannot disclose which one) I do not find your name listed or even indirectly mentioned in any of the agencies.
You claim to be a thief and robber which are crimes of ordinary stature that are treated by petty police officials such as Inspector Generals. What this ordinance is about helping to restore civil and political rights of those who bilked billions of dollars (not rupees) from the coffers of the state or from banks, and international donor institutions. Moreover these people fled the country and were on state's "watch list" for the last many years. They happen to have considerable clout they can exercise through our powerful friendly nations.
Another category of those who qualify are the robber barons who looted our beloved country of its precious resources under the very eyes of the populace and are considered "untouchable." They occupy high offices and are considered the cream of our "high society."
They hob nob with foreign and national who's who and carry lot of clout. Some of them have private armies and others can even employ the national army to get what they want. The NRO is to forgive and rehabilitate people described above to obtain and guard what they had robbed.
I am sorry to say that you do not qualify for any consideration. You are, in the eyes of General Musharraf, a small potato and not worth the paper on which you wrote your petition.
However, you have an opportunity to take advantage of the upcoming elections and buy your self a seat in the National Assembly and also pay for a cabinet post. You will then have a chance to amass a respectable amount of wealth and earn some notoriety. By the end of your first or second term there may be another NRO issued, by General Musharraf—who I am sure will still be around, to pardon your deeds or misdeeds. So be patient your day will come someday too.
Your most obedient servant.
[Director General of ……………… ]
RECONCILIATION ORDINANCE
[Zafar Iqbal, Karachi]
The concept was originated by Nelson Mandela except that in his case they called it the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our pragmatic president and equally pragmatic prime minister had decided to eliminate the word truth.
Not that one expects Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif to tell the truth or their prominent supporters to embark on such an adventure. It is true of politicians the world over but it is good to remind people that there is such a thing as truth.
There have been two interesting new developments. The first is the slogan demanding an independent judiciary. This is fine but not adequate because we also need a competent judiciary.
To achieve this, the selection process would have to be changed. The second important slogan is that military rule is bad. This is of course true except that our so-called democratic rule was worse.
It was certainly not democratic: they were elected under the auspices of military intelligence and the ISI. It was a revolving door arrangement the PPP succeeded the PML and the PML kept succeeding the PPP.
Not one of them supported freedom of the press and media or wanted an independent judiciary or, for that matter, had any interest in good governance or transparency in decision-making.
Will they now really try to introduce or work for the creation of democracy in the country? [Dawn]
SILVER LINING
[Muhammad Safdar Abbas Wattoo, Bahawal Nagar]
Issuance of amnesty for the politicians has many implications on the future course of politics in Pakistan. The corrupt practices of politicians have been usual business in our country since its inception. The adverse implications of the issuance of the National Reconciliation Ordinance have emerged in the form of MQM demanding general amnesty for criminal cases against workers of political parties. If this happens, one can easily visualise the future of our politics since this ordinance will encourage politicians to resume corrupt practices and party “jialas” to commit crimes for their party’s political interests.
The adverse implications of the so-called “National Reconciliation” ordinance can be avoided if politicians conceive this ordinance as the last chance of serving the nation to remove the stains on the pages of Pakistan’s political history. To this end, they must learn lessons from their past mistakes. They should start constructive activities for the country and should ensure that Pakistan becomes a safe, prosperous and stable country. This dream can only be realised if politicians share a common vision, a common goal, and make their self-interests secondary to national causes. [Daily Times]
NATIONAL RECONCILIATION ORDINANCE
[Qamar, Karachi]
While president Musharraf and his backers are giving lame excuses to justify the National Reconciliation Ordinance and the dropping of corruption charges against Benazir Bhutto and others, it should be interesting to see what the general had written in his memoirs:
“The four changes of prime ministers involved two cycles of alteration (sic) between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Never in the history of Pakistan had we seen such a combination of the worst kind of governance – or rather, a nearly total lack of governance – along with corruption and the plunder of national wealth (P 78).
“Former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, who had twice been tried, been tested, and failed, had to be denied a third chance. They had misgoverned the nation. Furthermore, they would never allow their parties to develop a democratic tradition .... In fact, Benazir became her party’s ‘chairperson for life’, in the tradition of the old African dictators! ... Benazir Bhutto had already run away from the country and absconded from the law during Nawaz Sharif’s time (pp 164 165). We established the rule that no one could be president or prime minister more than twice, whether the terms were consecutive or not and whether each term had been fully served or not. Many people thought this law has been brought in to prevent Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto from ever becoming prime minister again. This is partially true, but above all, the new rule was enacted to encourage new blood to compete for high offices. It will be a check on the dynastic rule of a few individuals (pp 169 170).”
It is clear from the above that Gen Musharraf has negated all the principles that he seemed to stand for. The huge corruption and misgovernance, the undemocratic ways of the former leaders as well as the sound decision of not allowing anyone to run for a third time not only as prime minister but also as president has been ignored even in his own case just because it suited his desire to cling to power.
It would only be appropriate to end this comment with these words of Edmund Burk: “Corrupt influence is itself the perennial spring of all prodigality, and of all disorder; it loads us more than millions of debt; takes away vigour from our councils and every wisdom from our councils, and every shadow of authority and credit from the most venerable parts of our constitution.” [Dawn]
THE INFAMOUS NRO
[Rafi Nasim, Lahore]
The National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) is the dirtiest joke that a government can play on its people. It has been promulgated by President Pervez Musharraf to facilitate Benazir Bhutto to share power with him in the new set up and has nothing to do with the nation in general. The most despicable aspect is the amnesty granted to politicians booked in the corruption cases over a certain period of time. It has been particularly designed to bail out Bhutto from all charges against her and to release her frozen assets. It is criminal that President Musharraf is inviting someone who faces numerous charges of corruption to become prime minister again.
Since another clause grants parliamentarians a free licence for corruption without any fear of getting arrested, all those holding positions in public offices will enjoy the freedom to plunder the nation’s wealth to any limit and get away with it. It is said that the NRO has been enforced on the behest of the US. I doubt it. Whatever I have seen during short visits to the US is that the principle of ‘no one is above the law’ is strictly enforced. They do not spare a minister (secretary) even on a traffic offence, what to speak of financial irregularities.
The nation in general and the legal fraternity in particular has not accepted the NRO. The solution is very simple. Since the Pakistan People’s Party abstained from the presidential elections and the president was elected without its votes, the president does not need Bhutto any more. He should say good-bye to her and abrogate the NRO to save Pakistan from becoming a laughing stock. [Daily Times]
NRO
[Sultan Ahmed Geelani, Karachi]
I wonder if Mushahid Hussain, the Q-League’s general secretary, really believes that corruption cases could not be proved against the dynastic couple of the PPP for ‘so many years’. And that the PPP represents a significant enough section of Pakistan’s political order to merit reconciliatory measures, since the accusations against Benazir Bhutto and husband, true or not, have remained unproven in a court of law for long enough.
But many people know that the accusations are true. They do not believe the propaganda of lack of proof. Anyone looking cursorily at the evidence why their cases remained unproven for so long will find that the couple’s lawyers did every possible legal/procedural manoeuvring to avoid either spouse’s appearance in courts, and thus both were just not subjected to proper court proceedings, so essential for conviction or acquittal.
Hence a great gasp of disapproval against the ordinance for withdrawal of cases.
For our collective moral good we must refuse the American pressure to re-install such people in power. They must stand trial. [Dawn]
RECONCILIATION OF THE CORRUPT
[Aftab S Alam, USA]
The NRO is designed and promulgated by ‘a man of standing’ to grant amnesty to other ‘men and woman of standing’ — a case of mutual back scratching by the corrupt. It’s a proof of that proverbial spider web through which big flies can pass but the little ones get caught. It is a manifestation of an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetite, to cling to power at the top of this morally bankrupt society. It is time that we resist this misrule by corrupt financial swindlers. We have got to say no to this rule of the rich and powerful who have converted this country into a joint-stock company for the exploitation of our national wealth, the dividends of which are divided among top bureaucrats, ministers, military brass, a few bankers, and most of the corrupt politicians. [Daily Times]
A FARCE
[Nauman Asghar, Lahore]
After the promulgation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007, all cases instituted against politicians and the holders of public office from January 1, 1986 to October 12, 1999 will be terminated. The ordinance also terminates all cases filed in the foreign countries by the government during this period. The purpose of this ordinance has been proclaimed to promote national reconciliation and foster mutual trust but in practice, this ordinance does exactly the opposite of what has been specified to be its object.
There are certain pre-requisites to be fulfilled in order to create an ambience conducive for national reconciliation. Firstly, no move aimed for this purpose should be discriminatory. Secondly, it must not be suspected of ‘expediency’ or ‘fulfilling individual interests’. This ordinance fulfils none of these conditions.
It is a discriminatory move because it exonerates only the parliamentarians and the public officials but does not apply to the poor citizens who are languishing in jails charged with minor offences. Thus it stands in violation of Article 25 of the constitution, which ensures the equality of citizens. Why should one individual have complete authority to forgive those who have duped the public? [Daily Times]
REWARDING THE CORRUPT?
[Shehzad Salim, Karachi]
Congratulations my fellow Pakistanis. We have become the first country in the world to officially recognise and institutionalise corruption. With the passage of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, Gen Musharraf has not only institutionalised corruption but also made it impossible to convict politicians, bureaucrats and party workers since, as now onwards they cannot be prosecuted unless their case is first examined by an ‘ethics committee’. In other words we now have another parallel legal system within our existing legal system.
Politicians accused of corruption will be tried under one system and the rest of the nation under another. Bravo! I did not expect this from a man who came to power eight years ago to root out corruption and other problems this country faced. Once again the whole nation has been let down, deceived and demoralised, so that one person can retain power. I guess the age-old adage, ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, is once again proven. The impression that the National Reconciliation Ordinance gives is that those who are corrupt will be free and safe from the law while the honest will continue to be penalised. Now is the time to rethink what profession our children should take up. I suggest that they become politicians or bureaucrats. Businessmen, professionals and of course common people are penalised for the slightest indiscretion. Simply put, be corrupt and enjoy the spoils, be honest and toil all your life to achieve the subsistence-level of living. This is what the government is now advocating openly. Once again the army and politicians have let the nation down. [The News]
From the National Press
ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY?
[Vipul Thakore London, UK]
Pakistan’s government and officials keep manipulating economic statistics. This time wheat output was inflated to get to seven per cent growth rate for 2006-07.
Even the much hyped eight per cent + GDP growth for a year some time back was actually seven per cent as per the detailed supporting documents issued then by the State Bank of Pakistan. I have actually seen some evidence of it.
The purpose of statistical manipulation is to get good headline and try to fool people in Pakistan and abroad. However, it does not change the ground reality. As the saying goes, one cannot fool all the people all the time and Pakistan pays a huge price for foolishness of crooked persons in the authority.
The Economist (UK) has recently published ‘World Investment Prospects to 2011’, a copy of which I received at ‘The Emerging Markets Summit’ organised by the Economist Intelligence Unit in London on Sept 24 and 25.
Under emerging markets of Asia it lists China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. Pakistan is not included. The main reason is unreliable and manipulated statistics in Pakistan.
This is a very important publication and many top international financial institutions will not now even think of Pakistan in their investment strategy. Exporting and re-importing wheat will cost a few million dollars, but Pakistan having earned the name of statistical manipulators will pay a much bigger price now. [Dawn]
PROFITS AT WHOSE COST?
[M. K. Naqvi, Karachi]
Dr Ali Akbar Dhakan’s question (Sept 8) took my mind to the fabulous profits made by oil companies during the last five years, the amount of which stands at the staggering figure of Rs100 billion.
My heart sank at the newsbreak. The petroleum ministry has spoken the truth at last. The oil companies had arm-twisted it in 2002 and extracted a formula of oil pricing in which the profit and commission was added to the final cost which meant that the general public had to double-pay the taxes on oil, commission and net resultant profits. Our public may not be that stupid – but they are made to look fools by the use of such secret and fooling formulae.
Who were those persons involved in drawing up such a formula? How and why were they blackmailed or bribed into formulating such blood draining pricing? And still the officials of the ministry have been saying that the government was subsidising the oil prices; it had paid Rs80 billion in subsidy from March 2002 to October 2004.
Had those people forgotten the fact that the government was pocketing Rs20 per litre profit itself? The government had no business to charge profits and also pay subsidy. It earned about Rs200 billion, during those five years, and paid Rs80 billion on subsidy. It earned a cool 120 billion.
But Dr Dhakan is saying something about banking. He says banks are gluttonous as they are earning huge and unreasonable profits at the expense of general public, especially the middle class which is the backbone of any progressing society.
The profit of banks for one year is close to Rs50 billion. I know for certain that the returns they offer to depositors is nowhere near reasonable rates. The State Bank of Pakistan, the superpower of all banks, should keep a vigilant eye on all commercial banks to regulate banking operations keeping in view the interest of all classes, especially the middle one. [Dawn]
COMBATING POVERTY
[Shams Zaheer Abbas, Lahore]
Frequent administrative measures against the ‘rehriwallahs’ or small retailers are hypocritical in the sense that the manufacturers or big producers are not under any regulation to charge a rational profit on their products.
That being the concept of free enterprise and capitalist theories, unlimited profit to the multinationals and companies is permitted. No one dares question them as that would antagonise strong lobbies. The only tool left is to rely on cosmetic measures.
We thus see raids on the poorest of the poor who barely make ends meet through a day’s sale from their rehris. This only helps to increase poverty, besides increasing frustration amongst the poor.
If we have to address poverty, we need to be looking at the issue bottom upwards and upwards down. For the trickledown theory to work, the whole society has to respond. This response has to take the shape of reducing wasteful consumption, setting personal examples of austere living and, finally, a determined effort to control family size in proportion to resource availability.
Poverty in Pakistan needs to be addressed not through slogans but by demonstrable practical measures. [Dawn]
CONSUMER PROTECTION
[Sana Javed, Lahore]
Pakistani consumers have only recently started to become aware of their rights. Although this trend is not on as widespread as it should be, it is still cause for celebration. Leading business schools teach students that the ‘buyer is the king’ and that ‘the customer is always right’. Finally, some Pakistani manufacturers have started realising the value of this lesson. The establishment of 11 consumer courts at the district level in Punjab is quite a blessing for customers who have been helplessly buying products of low quality or those that are poorly developed and, therefore, dangerous.
These eleven courts were established under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 to penalise manufacturers and service providers who were delivering sub-standard products and services. The cases at consumer courts are supposed to be heard by Additional or District Session Judges. Any consumers with a complaint can approach a court free of cost and demand damages. The court is bound under law to decide cases within six weeks. All consumers should enjoy their consumer rights and make full use of this law. [Daily Times]
BUREAUCRACY: INCOMPETENT & CORRUPT
[Shameem Ahmad, Karachi]
Why is our bureaucracy so incompetent and corrupt? Why does a typical government servant keeps ‘Pakistan first’ behind him and his own personal legitimate and illegitimate interests before him?
In my view the reasons are obvious from the results of the latest CSS examinations (Dawn, Sept 25). Out of 3,505 candidates who sat in the competitive examinations, only 194 were able to pass them.
This means only 5.5 per cent were competent enough to get the required 45 per cent or more marks, and the remaining 94.5 per cent were not educated enough to get even 45 per cent marks. Is this not a sad state of affairs?
How many of the 5.5 per cent performed better and got more than 50 per cet or 60 per cent marks is a big question that can be answered only by the Federal Public Service Commission whose chairman (a lieutenant-general) was sent home merely because he wanted to have all recruitments and promotions done on merit.
Who are the young men and women who aspire to join government service through the CSS competitive examinations? They are mostly those who consider themselves incompetent for professions in the private sector, or those who want to have an easy, care-free life, or those who want to have a short- cut to wealth and prosperity acquired by corruption. Evidently, any of these types, if inducted in the government service, will be unable to deliver what is expected of them.
In the ‘good old days’ and following the tradition bequeathed by the British Raj, only the best and the brightest chose to sit in the CSP (Civil Service of Pakistan) competitive examinations. Those who qualified were then thoroughly grilled through interviews and psychological tests.
The process resulted in the selection of only those who could be relied upon to serve not themselves but the country and the nation. Alas, that is no more. But what makes me more sad is that no one in Pakistan is ready to listen to reason. [Dawn]
SOLUTION TO THE TRAFFIC CHAOS
[S. Khalid Husain, Karachi]
The DIG (traffic), when he gave Sami Mustafa (Oct 22) clichéd reasons for the traffic mess in Karachi, was doing what the bureaucrats in Pakistan have always done: blame everything on congenital causes that defy resolution of problems.
This attitude breeds defeatism. It turns challenges into insurmountable hurdles and leaders into fatalists. It is this attitude which Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and prime minister, identified as Pakistan’s major problem when he visited here some years ago. Significantly, he did not say the problem was insurmountable.
The DIG may be right when he blames the traffic mess on lack of public transport, insufficient flyovers and underpasses, shortage of ‘nafree’ (policemen), money and equipment. He did the right thing to invite Mr Mustafa to suggest ways to improve the situation and Sami made the right suggestions.
But then fatalism took over. The police stance was : ‘People are inherently undisciplined’, ‘enforcement of traffic laws causes people to protest’, etc.
However, all this has to change, and change through the leadership of the country who must first change their level of national consciousness before changing that of the people at large.
If people are ‘undisciplined’, so are the leaders. If drivers of bus, tankers and others break traffic laws, so do bureaucrats, generals and politicians.
The first thing the police chief should consider, if he is serious about bringing some order to the traffic chaos in the city, is to find a way to get his own officers to respect these.
No car with the Sindh police number plate and no police mobile should be seen jumping the traffic light etc.
Next, the police chief should crack down hard on all government vehicles. Armed forces vehicles whether flag cars or trucks should not be above traffic laws. They must adhere to these and be booked for violations.
Now if the police chief stops being fatalistic he can do much to make all above happen. If he can get his own force to respect, what the force is supposed to enforce, he would have made a strong statement.
He can then strategise to get the Sindh government to agree for him to go for official cars and vehicles which violate traffic laws.
His strategy may involve discreet winning of media support and public backing for this. If the media and the public can see the change of disciplined movement of police vehicles, the police chief will find both his useful and voluble allies for similar change in the movement of official vehicles.
With the cars and vehicles of the police force and of Sindh government in the bag, the armed forces will be hard put not to fall in line.
If official cars and vehicles are seen to be subjected to traffic laws, it would create a new respect for these laws, and for the traffic police, in the public mind.
This is the message the police chief has to get across to his own force, to the Sindh government and to the armed forces. An admittedly ‘easier said than done’ type task, but not fatalistic.
The main hurdle will be the feeling of ‘loss of status’ by bureaucrats, generals and politicians for whom waiting at a red light, or not being able to park in ‘no parking’ zones, would amount to loss of face.
The police chief can safely tell the Sindh government that so long as official vehicles, whose numbers are not inconsequential, remain above the law, there is no way he can get the others to respect and follow the law.
Conversely, if the official vehicles abide by the law, that would be better than half the battle won. He can cope with, tackle, and win the other half.
As long as there are distinct groups in the country that are clearly seen to be above the law, there will remain the traffic chaos on the streets and disorder in the country. [Dawn]
==================================================================
Good News
PAKISTANIS OVERWHELMINGLY FAVOUR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are supportive of international trade as they see it good for economic advancement of the country, according to a latest world-wide public opinion survey. The survey by 'Pew Global Attitudes Projects' found that 82 percent Pakistanis favour international trade, 60 percent of the respondents saw people better off in free market economies. A substantial part of the population also feels that foreign companies operating in the country are having a positive impact. Pakistan has sustained a robust economic growth rate, of around 7 percent in the last few years, with its exports more than doubling in the last eight years.
The survey finds that publics of the world broadly embrace key tenets of economic globalisation, but fear the disruptions and downsides of participating in the global economy. In rich countries, as well as in poor ones, most people endorse free trade, multinational corporations and free markets. However, the latest 'Pew' survey of more than 45,000 people finds that they are concerned about inequality, threats to their culture, threats to the environment and threats posed by immigration.
There are signs that enthusiasm for economic globalisation is waning in the West: Americans and Western Europeans are less supportive of international trade and multinational companies than they were five years ago. In contrast, there is near-universal approval of global trade among the publics of rising Asian economic powers.
Nonetheless, since 2002 enthusiasm for trade has declined significantly in the United States, Italy, France and Britain, and views of multinationals are less positive in Western countries where economic growth has been relatively modest in recent years.
There are widely shared concerns about the free flow of people, ideas and resources that globalisation entails. In nearly every country surveyed, people worry about losing their traditional culture and national identities, and they feel their way of life needs protection against foreign influences.
CPNE MEDIA COMPLAINTS COMMISSION CONSTITUTED
The President of the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE), Syed Faseih Iqbal has announced the constitution of the Media Complaints Commission (MCC) of the CPNE. Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid has given his consent to head the MCC as its first chairman. The CPNE President said various members of the organization as also those of civil society in Pakistan had been pressing the CPNE very strongly for the formal launching of the Media Complaints Commission.
He said that the recent events including the violence and pressures suffered by the media persons, media organizations and civil society in the country warranted the immediate constitution of the Media Complaints Commission of the CPNE so that grievances and complaints regarding free flow of information, media freedom, performing of professional duties and violation of journalistic code of ethics could be addressed to exert moral and ethical pressure on all stakeholders.
He said the first meeting of the Media Complaints Commission will be held on October 23, 2007 under the chairmanship of Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid and would be attended by the members of the commission which include veteran journalist Mr. Mehmood ul Aziz, as commission’s Vice Chairman, renowned media person Mr. Ikram-ul-Majeed Sehgal and seasoned journalist Mr. Younus Riaz.
At its first meeting, the Media Complaints Commission will finalize its own rules of business and procedures for entertaining various grievances and complaints within the framework of the Media Complaints Commission’s objectives. He said that the forthcoming first meeting of the Media Complaints Commission would be a successful beginning towards the goal of providing a forum which meets urgent public demand to redress the obstacles and hindrances against freedom of media which would be in the service of democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan.
==================================================================
Letters to FreePakistan
I have been listening to all the news of Pakistan. I listened to the BBC when Benazir Bhutto landed at Karachi airport... then I was busy all day. That night I watched the BBC news showing the bomb blast on route to the Jinnah Mausoleum. Such a mess. Really, one wonders if it was the right thing to do on her part to expose so many people to such risk... naturally she was unharmed. Some of us believe that the US government is promoting her to regain power. Ah, the sad state of politics.
peace,
[Katherine Gogel, USA]
I think some outstanding parts of Newsletters can be published seperately, like Readers' Digests, with some further notes and comments, so that they can be kept in book form.
You are really doing a great job, for Pakistan and for all other nations. Your efforts may or may not have immediate direct consequences, but they are to be proved to be the most valuable in enlightening people's mind and elevating people's life, both spiritually and materially.
Yours in liberty
[Dean Peng, China]
Dear Friends of Burma in Pakistan,
Our consiscence tells us that whenever we see something wong, we ought to do something about it, remind the parties concerned, or at the least pray for it. With all due respects, I dare myself to participate in the second act - as a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia - please help by extending prayers to our friends in need. May our brothers and sisters in Burma live in peace in the light of God, humanity and universe, and happy as we are.
Attached please find my open letter to Senior General Than Shwe in particular, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Buddhist Monks, and the people of Burma as a sovereign nation and our fellow inhabitants of Global Village. The same letter is posted at pujanarto.com, feel free to use, distribute, or any other good use of the open letter as a reminder that we can never get what we want in life without His merciful blessings.
La Spirit Vivra, Terima Kasih.
Namaste! Wassalam,
[Tri Pujanarto
pujanarto.com
Fax. +62-274-898132, Cell. +62-81578703967
Studio: Candibinangun, Pakem, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Mailing address: Jl. Arumdalu CT X/16, Karang Asem Baru, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia]
==================================================================
Edited and prepared by
Khalil Ahmad
Email: khalilkf@yahoo.com khalil@asinstitute.org
[FreePakistan Newsletter, among other things, is a compilation of views and news taken from the national newspapers’ print and online editions. It is not possible to mention the source of every piece of news or view made use of herein; but as a matter of policy, where possible the source is mentioned with due thanks. However, no opinion expressed here should necessarily be taken as reflecting the view of Free Pakistan Newsletter.]
==================================================================
Disclaimer:
“You are subscribed to the monthly Free Pakistan Newsletter, an affiliate of the Alternate Solutions Institute Lahore, Pakistan. . If you have received this message by mistake or wish to be removed from the mailing list, please send an email to subscribe@asinstitute.org with the subject “unsubscribe.”
