ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) acting Chairman Dr Abdul Jabbar on Thursday blamed the Interior Ministry for non-issuance of security clearance to Geo Super because of which the broadcasting licence was not being issued in favour of Pakistan’s first sports channel.
“It’s not Pemra but the Interior Ministry which gives security clearance before issuance of a satellite TV licence,” he said during a press conference at Pemra headquarters on Thursday giving reference of relevant rules under which such a clearance was mandatory.
He, however, did not reply that if the Interior Ministry gave the security clearance then whether or not the licence will be given to Geo Super.
Dr Jabbar also admitted that it has been conveyed to Geo Super not to broadcast from Pakistan and if it did so, action would be taken against it. On one occasion, he said Geo Super did not get the security clearance and again said that some directors of Geo Super did not get security clearance.
However, when the journalists protested his remarks, he immediately said that the directors of Geo Super were more patriotic than anyone else. When repeatedly asked as to who was to issue the security clearance to Geo Super, the acting chairman said it was the Interior Ministry.
In the beginning of his press conference, he said Pemra had not closed down Geo Super but had only told them not to telecast from Pakistan as its lending rights were from Dubai and its licence did not cover Pakistan.
At one point, the Pemra acting chairman said that the regulatory authority had not closed down any channel in Pakistan, but in the same breath he stated that if Geo Super telecasts its programmes from Pakistan, action would be taken against it.
He said Geo Super did not have a licence for telecasting from Pakistan, so Pemra has no powers to close it down. He claimed that Pemra is a regulatory body and its function was to regulate the TV channels. “We gave the licence for 15 years and a second licence for landing rights for which there are rules and regulations,” he added.
Dr Abdul Jabbar said Pemra has issued licences to 85 channels and 11 companies have landing rights. “It is necessary that a foreign company should have an agreement with a local company for availing the landing rights,” he said.
He claimed that the Geo Super made an agreement with a company which did not get security clearance. He also claimed that Geo News was giving false news and Pemra will issue legal notice to the channel.
When a journalist asked as to what action Pemra had taken against the cable operators who showed immoral movies, he claimed that notices were issued to them. He said the signals of Geo Super were coming via satellite but were not being uplinked.
He said that Pemra only provided facility of uplinking temporarily on an event basis. “We have asked Geo Super to tell us what they want to show. Till a decision is taken on their application, we cannot provide them the facility of uplinking as they have a licence which is for outside Pakistan,” he said.
He said Geo Super had sent an application for a satellite TV in 2009 but Pemra issues a licence only after security clearance, but so far there is no security clearance about the channel. “We will not give licence to Geo Super till security clearance was there and that was the reason why we asked them to run the channel from outside Pakistan, not from within Pakistan,” he said.
He said Pemra’s Balochistan Regional Manager Gul Muhammad Kakar was not an employee of Pemra as he was working on deputation, so he was repatriated. “He was defaming Pemra,” he said. When asked what the Geo group has to do now, he said, “Geo is giving false news and it should give correct news.”
When asked as to how could he being a government employee call Geo a security risk while Pemra itself was indulging in information terrorism, the acting chairman replied that Pemra was non-partisan and added that he had not declared Geo as a security risk but had talked only about security clearance.
He did not reply to a question when asked as to why the directives of the superior judiciary were not implemented. He also did not reply to the question that if Geo Super was showing the World Cup matches illegally, then why it was allowed to do so.
The Presidency’s henchman Dr Jabbar’s press conference on Pakistan’s only sports channel – Geo Super – was full of repeated contradictions, white lies and baseless claims simply to mislead and befool the people and to hoodwink the apex court which is scheduled to hear the Geo Super case on Friday.
Dr Jabbar, who is executive member of Pemra, and used to request journalists to use the word ‘Pemra chairman’ for him, started his press conference with the words that Geo News is airing wrong propaganda that Pemra or the government had put the Geo Super off-air. However, later in his 30-minute press conference he denied his own words almost five to six times, saying that Pemra had written a letter to Geo Super asking it to not to uplink its signal from Pakistan and that Geo Super only had landing rights but could not uplink its signals from Pakistan.
At one point, Dr Jabbar claimed that neither he nor the government was against Geo, but during the same press conference, he repeatedly admitted that Pemra had not granted a broadcasting licence to Geo Super. He said at so many points during the press conference that the government did not give mandatory security clearance to Geo Super and that is why this sports channel could not be given the broadcasting licence.
When he was confronted that if Geo Super was a security risk, why the government was allowing the Geo News, Geo Entertainment and Aag TV which all are run by the Geo TV Network, Dr Jabbar opted not to reply.
At one point Dr Jabbar admitted that the sports channel is liked by viewers but in the next instance when he was asked whether Geo Super will be given the licence, he replied that Pemra is not giving any more satellite TV licences.
After saying that people like the sports channel, he even said that while granting the licence Pemra had to see whether there is demand of a channel or not. Totally confused replies of Dr Jabbar mixed up the issues so badly that nothing was clear to anyone.
If one collect the above statements of Dr Jabbar given in this paragraph, it could be read as; “People like the sports channel. Pemra has to see whether there is demand of a channel or not and even if there is a demand for the sports channel; Pemra will not give the licence to Geo Super.”
While Dr Jabbar acknowledged the importance of sports channels in Pakistan and admitted that Geo Super was the only Pakistani sports channel, he said at seven different occasions that Geo Super will not be allowed to uplink its signal from Pakistan.
Where Dr Jabbar swiftly responded to the questions regarding Geo Super, he kept mysterious silence when he was asked that it is being alleged that a channel, ‘Sohni Dharti’ is his channel which he was running in the name some of his friends.
He also did not reply that the licence fee of an entertainment channel is Rs5 million while he (Dr Jabbar) granted the licence of channel ‘Sohni Dharti’ for only half a million rupees by showing it as an “agricultural channel”.
He also did not reply that this channel was only airing entertainment programmes whereas it is registered as an agricultural channel. He also did not reply to the question that almost in the entire country this channel was placed on Number 5 in cable networks by pressuring the operators for the same purpose.
He also did not reply that he removed his Pemra Faisalabad officer who did not obey his illegal orders to pressurise the cable operators to place Sohni Dharti on initial numbers on cable network.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
EAC for taxing all incomes
ISLAMABAD – The Economic Advisory Council (EAC) on Thursday came up with a suggestion to tax all incomes, irrespective of the source of origin, including agriculture and service sector, in the coming budget 2011-12.
Federal Minister for Finance and Revenue Abdul Hafeez Sheikh chaired the meeting of the EAC that overviewed the economic situation of the country, including the performance of key sectors of the economy, and also discussed the proposals for the upcoming budget for the fiscal year 2011-12.
The EAC meeting also agreed that the Austerity Plan and the Governance Plan, already approved by the EAC and the Cabinet, should be implemented in letter and spirit. Meanwhile, it was also agreed that the EAC will interact with all the stakeholders for the budget-making process.
The EAC also discussed the important proposals, including giving impetus to the Public Sector Enterprise (PSE) reforms through creation of a holding company of a transitional nature to undertake restructuring of the eight existing PSEs and also include several other large PSEs in its ambit. The holding company will be led by a credible Board of Directors.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) gave a detailed presentation on the revenue collection performance for the first nine months (July-March) of the ongoing financial year 2010-11, saying it collected Rs 1012 billion in the period in question.
Sources were of the view that some EAC members showed concerns over the performance of the Tax Department during the period in question of the ongoing fiscal year, and they feared that the FBR might not be able to achieve the revenue collection target of Rs 1,604 billion by June 30.
However, the FBR highlighted the recent measures undertaken to achieve the revenue target. The presentation also outlined an enforcement plan, risk-based audit, broadening of the tax base and successful implementation of the fully-automated refund system. The FBR hoped that with these measures, they could achieve the annual tax collection target of Rs 1,604 billion.
The Planning Commission presented the government’s new growth strategy based on improving productivity, governance and market reforms, urban management, connectivity and youth empowerment. The EAC agreed to reform the Planning Commission for strengthening its role in the planning process. It was also decided that the Planning Commission would draw out a plan to operationalise the conceptual framework of growth strategy for the EAC and its subsequent implementation by the government.
Meanwhile, the EAC also set up working groups to formulate recommendations in key areas like governance, energy, trade, taxation, capital markets, banking and agriculture among others.
The meeting was attended by Dr Hafiz A Pasha, Convener EAC, Shaukat Tarin, former finance minister, the Deputy Chairman Planning Commission, the Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs, the Governor State Bank of Pakistan, senior officials and members of the EAC, including Dr Ijaz Nabi, Jahangir Khan Tarin, Salim Raza, Farooq Rahmatullah, Ali Habib, Nasim Beg, Shahnaz Wazir Ali, Farid Rehman, Hassan Ali Chaniho and Arshad Zuberi.
Federal Minister for Finance and Revenue Abdul Hafeez Sheikh chaired the meeting of the EAC that overviewed the economic situation of the country, including the performance of key sectors of the economy, and also discussed the proposals for the upcoming budget for the fiscal year 2011-12.
The EAC meeting also agreed that the Austerity Plan and the Governance Plan, already approved by the EAC and the Cabinet, should be implemented in letter and spirit. Meanwhile, it was also agreed that the EAC will interact with all the stakeholders for the budget-making process.
The EAC also discussed the important proposals, including giving impetus to the Public Sector Enterprise (PSE) reforms through creation of a holding company of a transitional nature to undertake restructuring of the eight existing PSEs and also include several other large PSEs in its ambit. The holding company will be led by a credible Board of Directors.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) gave a detailed presentation on the revenue collection performance for the first nine months (July-March) of the ongoing financial year 2010-11, saying it collected Rs 1012 billion in the period in question.
Sources were of the view that some EAC members showed concerns over the performance of the Tax Department during the period in question of the ongoing fiscal year, and they feared that the FBR might not be able to achieve the revenue collection target of Rs 1,604 billion by June 30.
However, the FBR highlighted the recent measures undertaken to achieve the revenue target. The presentation also outlined an enforcement plan, risk-based audit, broadening of the tax base and successful implementation of the fully-automated refund system. The FBR hoped that with these measures, they could achieve the annual tax collection target of Rs 1,604 billion.
The Planning Commission presented the government’s new growth strategy based on improving productivity, governance and market reforms, urban management, connectivity and youth empowerment. The EAC agreed to reform the Planning Commission for strengthening its role in the planning process. It was also decided that the Planning Commission would draw out a plan to operationalise the conceptual framework of growth strategy for the EAC and its subsequent implementation by the government.
Meanwhile, the EAC also set up working groups to formulate recommendations in key areas like governance, energy, trade, taxation, capital markets, banking and agriculture among others.
The meeting was attended by Dr Hafiz A Pasha, Convener EAC, Shaukat Tarin, former finance minister, the Deputy Chairman Planning Commission, the Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs, the Governor State Bank of Pakistan, senior officials and members of the EAC, including Dr Ijaz Nabi, Jahangir Khan Tarin, Salim Raza, Farooq Rahmatullah, Ali Habib, Nasim Beg, Shahnaz Wazir Ali, Farid Rehman, Hassan Ali Chaniho and Arshad Zuberi.
Inflation outlook disheartening
KARACHI – The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has said that Pakistan’s economy will continue to grow at a steady pace, facing a number of domestic and external challenges in the current fiscal year 2010-11.
The State Bank of Pakistan published its report for the second quarter of FY11 on Friday.
The report found the revenue targets set under the tax reforms for the prevalent financial years are ambitious, warning that the planned official inflows from the IMF and other international financial institutions could be affected in case the government fails to implement the fiscal austerity measures effectively. “With fiscal pressures and below-target external funding, domestic financing pressures may increase; this will either crowd out the private sector further or result in unwelcome borrowing from SBP, which in turn may reverse some of the positive steps taken to date to address the country’s macroeconomic problems,” it said. The SBP has stuck to its earlier projection of Gross Domestic Product growth of 2-3pc for the current fiscal year (FY11), accounting for the catastrophic floods in Aug 2010. However, looking at inflation, the report said, “Although projections for FY11 have eased marginally to 14.5-15.5pc but it seems that inflationary expectations are becoming engrained”.
Despite expected decent growth in the agriculture sector, the SBP report highlighted three key risks in the present domestic and global economic environment. Firstly, it noted that Pakistan’s talks with the IMF have been difficult primarily because of socio-political resistance to paying taxes. Hence, it is not surprising that the programme is suspended, and even some of the recent tax measures may be viewed as second-best, being one-off in nature.
Secondly, due to the risk-averse behaviour of commercial banks it is expected that banks would channel increasing volumes of credit to the government, crowding out the private sector further because of a high fiscal deficit and blockages in external sector. Thirdly, if political uncertainty remains and spreads further in the Middle East/ North Africa (MENA) region, oil prices could increase even more sharply than the recent past. Although this will hurt the global economy quite severely, the impact on Pakistan could be disproportionately larger.
Finally, the uncertain investment horizon and an adverse law & order situation – related to the fight against extremism – will also strongly influence this outlook.
The report stated, “Looking ahead, perhaps measures like the withdrawal of exemptions from GST signal a more inclusive and aggressive intent for the FY12 Budget – recent FBR efforts to identify wealthy non-payers is a good sign in this regard”.
“Although we do not have formal data for the period Jan-Mar 2011, a preliminary assessment suggests that the external sector will remain comfortable, the report said adding that we remain cautiously optimistic about progress on the fiscal side, as shown by the recent fiscal measures to reduce the gap by Rs210 billion this fiscal year. On the banking side, the increase in textile lending may slow down as international cotton prices fall from their recent peak, and seasonal demand for credit eases.
“Despite the staggering humanitarian cost of the August 2010 floods, there is a possible upside for the agriculture sector. Other than better-than-expected wheat production this year, we are also optimistic about cotton, sugarcane and rice in FY12, it said.
In fact, recent weather conditions may help – the unexpectedly large snowfall this winter will help our kharif crops when the snow melts, while cotton could get a boost with the shift to BT cotton. Although targets for the next crop have not been firmed up yet, there is a view that the target for FY12 could be as high as 17.0 million bales, against FY11’s target of 14.5 million bales and actual output of 11.7 million bales. The possible upside to GDP in FY12 – if this were to happen – could be significant, it added.
The government appears to be working with key stakeholders (Pakistan’s political leadership) to implement policies, which may not get the necessary support from their financial and political constituencies. However, we remain optimistic that multi-partisan efforts will resolve this stubborn economic impediment. We hope that despite these fiscal challenges, the government continues to meet its commitment (to SBP) to stay below its end-September 2010 level of borrowing from the central bank, it opined.
“There are only three avenues that Pakistan can take to meet deficit targets – exceptional steps to increase fiscal revenues; reforming loss-making PSEs; and eliminating end-user subsidies. On the revenues side, although RGST has become the focal point, addressing revenue leakages and glaring exemptions (eg agriculture and ineffective taxation of properties) needs serious attention,” it suggested.
The report disclosed that the external sector is comfortable. During Jul-Feb FY11, Pakistan’s current account deficit was only $98.0 million, against $3,027 million in the corresponding period in FY10.
Strong dollar-denominated export growth of 20.3 percent (on the back of high prices of textiles), sluggish manufacturing and consumer demand (reflected in the 12.7 percent growth in imports), and strong remittances (up 18 percent over FY10); are primarily responsible for the improvement.
“Having said this, net foreign inflows in the financial account have declined sharply, as the stalled IMF programme has stopped inflows from other IFIs and bilateral donors. Nevertheless, the improvement in the current account has pushed Pakistan’s foreign reserves to record highs, while the Pak rupee remains stable,” it said.
The State Bank of Pakistan published its report for the second quarter of FY11 on Friday.
The report found the revenue targets set under the tax reforms for the prevalent financial years are ambitious, warning that the planned official inflows from the IMF and other international financial institutions could be affected in case the government fails to implement the fiscal austerity measures effectively. “With fiscal pressures and below-target external funding, domestic financing pressures may increase; this will either crowd out the private sector further or result in unwelcome borrowing from SBP, which in turn may reverse some of the positive steps taken to date to address the country’s macroeconomic problems,” it said. The SBP has stuck to its earlier projection of Gross Domestic Product growth of 2-3pc for the current fiscal year (FY11), accounting for the catastrophic floods in Aug 2010. However, looking at inflation, the report said, “Although projections for FY11 have eased marginally to 14.5-15.5pc but it seems that inflationary expectations are becoming engrained”.
Despite expected decent growth in the agriculture sector, the SBP report highlighted three key risks in the present domestic and global economic environment. Firstly, it noted that Pakistan’s talks with the IMF have been difficult primarily because of socio-political resistance to paying taxes. Hence, it is not surprising that the programme is suspended, and even some of the recent tax measures may be viewed as second-best, being one-off in nature.
Secondly, due to the risk-averse behaviour of commercial banks it is expected that banks would channel increasing volumes of credit to the government, crowding out the private sector further because of a high fiscal deficit and blockages in external sector. Thirdly, if political uncertainty remains and spreads further in the Middle East/ North Africa (MENA) region, oil prices could increase even more sharply than the recent past. Although this will hurt the global economy quite severely, the impact on Pakistan could be disproportionately larger.
Finally, the uncertain investment horizon and an adverse law & order situation – related to the fight against extremism – will also strongly influence this outlook.
The report stated, “Looking ahead, perhaps measures like the withdrawal of exemptions from GST signal a more inclusive and aggressive intent for the FY12 Budget – recent FBR efforts to identify wealthy non-payers is a good sign in this regard”.
“Although we do not have formal data for the period Jan-Mar 2011, a preliminary assessment suggests that the external sector will remain comfortable, the report said adding that we remain cautiously optimistic about progress on the fiscal side, as shown by the recent fiscal measures to reduce the gap by Rs210 billion this fiscal year. On the banking side, the increase in textile lending may slow down as international cotton prices fall from their recent peak, and seasonal demand for credit eases.
“Despite the staggering humanitarian cost of the August 2010 floods, there is a possible upside for the agriculture sector. Other than better-than-expected wheat production this year, we are also optimistic about cotton, sugarcane and rice in FY12, it said.
In fact, recent weather conditions may help – the unexpectedly large snowfall this winter will help our kharif crops when the snow melts, while cotton could get a boost with the shift to BT cotton. Although targets for the next crop have not been firmed up yet, there is a view that the target for FY12 could be as high as 17.0 million bales, against FY11’s target of 14.5 million bales and actual output of 11.7 million bales. The possible upside to GDP in FY12 – if this were to happen – could be significant, it added.
The government appears to be working with key stakeholders (Pakistan’s political leadership) to implement policies, which may not get the necessary support from their financial and political constituencies. However, we remain optimistic that multi-partisan efforts will resolve this stubborn economic impediment. We hope that despite these fiscal challenges, the government continues to meet its commitment (to SBP) to stay below its end-September 2010 level of borrowing from the central bank, it opined.
“There are only three avenues that Pakistan can take to meet deficit targets – exceptional steps to increase fiscal revenues; reforming loss-making PSEs; and eliminating end-user subsidies. On the revenues side, although RGST has become the focal point, addressing revenue leakages and glaring exemptions (eg agriculture and ineffective taxation of properties) needs serious attention,” it suggested.
The report disclosed that the external sector is comfortable. During Jul-Feb FY11, Pakistan’s current account deficit was only $98.0 million, against $3,027 million in the corresponding period in FY10.
Strong dollar-denominated export growth of 20.3 percent (on the back of high prices of textiles), sluggish manufacturing and consumer demand (reflected in the 12.7 percent growth in imports), and strong remittances (up 18 percent over FY10); are primarily responsible for the improvement.
“Having said this, net foreign inflows in the financial account have declined sharply, as the stalled IMF programme has stopped inflows from other IFIs and bilateral donors. Nevertheless, the improvement in the current account has pushed Pakistan’s foreign reserves to record highs, while the Pak rupee remains stable,” it said.
Devolution Fundamentalists Vs HEC Chamchaas By Mosharraf Zaidi
The debate about the status of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in a post-18th Amendment scenario is being presented in interesting ways. One version of the debate is that this fight pits those who favour a centralised Pakistani state, against a band of do-good federalist champions – whose only interest is the strengthening of provinces and their autonomy. This is the version that a lot of well-intentioned people believe to be true. Unfortunately, the graveyards of the world are full of good intentions.
Those who are presenting the HEC debate as a battle between centralists and federalists, are essentially (either knowingly, or unwittingly) behaving like devolution fundamentalists. Like all other kinds of fundamentalism, devolution fundamentalism is a way of seeing things, in this case, a post-18th Amendment Pakistan, in starkly black and white terms. This kind of essentialism requires advocates of a federal structure, to be advocates of provincial autonomy, which then requires those advocates to be advocates of stripping away central agency – or the centre’s right to legislate, regulate and navigate public policy – in any area deemed to be worthy of being devolved.
In the essentialist world view of the devolution fundamentalist, the reason the HEC must go is because it invades and occupies the province’s right to oversee the higher education sector. But the logical corollary of this is that the HEC’s existence is, by very design, an attack on provincial space. Of course, that’s not really the function of the HEC.
The HEC was designed in 2002, by the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE) which counted among its members, the current PPP Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh (disclosure: I was also a key staff member for the SCHE). There were three key motivations behind higher education reform at the time. The first was to increase university enrollment which was, even by the highest estimates, no more than 280,000 at the time. The second was to improve the quality of university education through standardisation and quality assurance. The third was to ensure better governance and management of universities.
All three of these objectives required a dramatically improved financial allocation for university education, and right from its inception the HEC successfully lobbied for and achieved a quantum shift in higher education funding. From that point forward, the HEC represents one of the most important public policy successes in recent memory. But the HEC is far from perfect.
Even at its inception, there were debates about the correct balance within higher education. Dr Atta ur Rehman’s science and technology centric approach ended up being the primary focus of reform. This was countered by the approach favoured by other members of the SCHE who sought a greater role for humanities and arts in Pakistani universities. That debate is an important one that continues to this day.
Other entanglements and debates also ensued. Was it really worth the investment to have a tenure-track approach to teacher employment and retention, whilst not doing anything to change the permanent job status afforded to even lecturers at the BPS-17 level? Was buying accelerators for physics labs worth the investment, when many teachers required basic skills enhancement? These were debates worth having. The HEC may have been wrong about all of them, but they were debates that were relevant to higher education financing, regulation and quality assurance.
Today, in determining whether the HEC should or should not be retained as a regulatory body for higher education, the primary arguments for and against seem to be anything but relevant – either to higher education, or to the cause of a functioning federal state in Pakistan.
The other version of the HEC debate we have heard has been as thoughtless and politically poisonous as the devolution fundamentalists’ version has been essentialist. Raza Rabbani is as close as it gets to being a modern day Pakistani hero. The 18th Amendment may now be seen as an effort to assert Pakistani federalism, but it also deepened executive, legislative and judicial control over the country, it effectively removed the fingerprints of military autocrats from the constitution and achieved a rare and lasting sense of legislative achievement by a political class that never gets credit for the good, and always gets pinned with blame for the bad. Rabbani was and remains the instrumental clog that enabled the 18th Amendment to be passed.
So the version of the debate, as framed by HEC defenders, is as ridiculous as the first. Rabbani is not a partisan PPP hack, jealous and scared of the HEC’s ability to identify fake degrees. The HEC is not a flawless organisation whose integrity and achievements are beyond reproach. This is not a battle between those who want education and prosperity in the country versus those who want feudal raj.
Those who are making such claims or implying that such a divide exists, are the opposite of devolution fundamentalists. They may be acting out of innocent concern for higher education, but they end up seeming to be HEC chamchaas.
Pakistan doesn’t need any devolution fundamentalists, or HEC chamchaas. The truth is that a lot of what the HEC does is legally still the domain of the federal government or the central agency to which the government has delegated authority – in the HEC’s case this has been done statutorily through the HEC Ordinance 2002. Quality assurance and standardisation remain important. So too does the ability to shut down universities if they are not providing the minimum benchmarked quality of education. These are legitimate post-18th Amendment federal functions.
The big question is financing. Here, the provinces have a reasonable, but potentially dangerous case. Senator Rabbani would do well to avoid the path of the devolution fundamentalist, by ensuring that his proposed solutions address reasonable concerns without exposing universities, students, and teachers to very high and unnecessary risks.
The problem is simple. Instead of routing money through the HEC, provinces want the money for universities in their jurisdiction to flow through the province. This is a legitimate demand. But the risk here is off the charts. Not only do provinces not have adequate capacity. There are more urgent worries. What if a given province decides to take the money and spend it on handouts for the poor, under the Benazir Income Support Programme? Or take the money and build a new ring road around a big city? Or a new underpass? Or new bullet proof vests for its policemen?
A fiscally autonomous province should be free to make those decisions. But a sane and responsible provincial government would not make them at the expense of university financing. An inter-provincial mechanism could solve this problem. So too could statutory provincial ring-fencing of higher education budgets – both recurring and development. There is a solution here somewhere, if we’re willing to find it.
A federal HEC that ensures quality, and enforces standards is not inconceivable. A provincial financing mechanism for universities that ensures adequate and sustained levels of funding is also not inconceivable. We need not be devolution fundamentalists or HEC chamchaas to achieve all this.
Those who are presenting the HEC debate as a battle between centralists and federalists, are essentially (either knowingly, or unwittingly) behaving like devolution fundamentalists. Like all other kinds of fundamentalism, devolution fundamentalism is a way of seeing things, in this case, a post-18th Amendment Pakistan, in starkly black and white terms. This kind of essentialism requires advocates of a federal structure, to be advocates of provincial autonomy, which then requires those advocates to be advocates of stripping away central agency – or the centre’s right to legislate, regulate and navigate public policy – in any area deemed to be worthy of being devolved.
In the essentialist world view of the devolution fundamentalist, the reason the HEC must go is because it invades and occupies the province’s right to oversee the higher education sector. But the logical corollary of this is that the HEC’s existence is, by very design, an attack on provincial space. Of course, that’s not really the function of the HEC.
The HEC was designed in 2002, by the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE) which counted among its members, the current PPP Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh (disclosure: I was also a key staff member for the SCHE). There were three key motivations behind higher education reform at the time. The first was to increase university enrollment which was, even by the highest estimates, no more than 280,000 at the time. The second was to improve the quality of university education through standardisation and quality assurance. The third was to ensure better governance and management of universities.
All three of these objectives required a dramatically improved financial allocation for university education, and right from its inception the HEC successfully lobbied for and achieved a quantum shift in higher education funding. From that point forward, the HEC represents one of the most important public policy successes in recent memory. But the HEC is far from perfect.
Even at its inception, there were debates about the correct balance within higher education. Dr Atta ur Rehman’s science and technology centric approach ended up being the primary focus of reform. This was countered by the approach favoured by other members of the SCHE who sought a greater role for humanities and arts in Pakistani universities. That debate is an important one that continues to this day.
Other entanglements and debates also ensued. Was it really worth the investment to have a tenure-track approach to teacher employment and retention, whilst not doing anything to change the permanent job status afforded to even lecturers at the BPS-17 level? Was buying accelerators for physics labs worth the investment, when many teachers required basic skills enhancement? These were debates worth having. The HEC may have been wrong about all of them, but they were debates that were relevant to higher education financing, regulation and quality assurance.
Today, in determining whether the HEC should or should not be retained as a regulatory body for higher education, the primary arguments for and against seem to be anything but relevant – either to higher education, or to the cause of a functioning federal state in Pakistan.
The other version of the HEC debate we have heard has been as thoughtless and politically poisonous as the devolution fundamentalists’ version has been essentialist. Raza Rabbani is as close as it gets to being a modern day Pakistani hero. The 18th Amendment may now be seen as an effort to assert Pakistani federalism, but it also deepened executive, legislative and judicial control over the country, it effectively removed the fingerprints of military autocrats from the constitution and achieved a rare and lasting sense of legislative achievement by a political class that never gets credit for the good, and always gets pinned with blame for the bad. Rabbani was and remains the instrumental clog that enabled the 18th Amendment to be passed.
So the version of the debate, as framed by HEC defenders, is as ridiculous as the first. Rabbani is not a partisan PPP hack, jealous and scared of the HEC’s ability to identify fake degrees. The HEC is not a flawless organisation whose integrity and achievements are beyond reproach. This is not a battle between those who want education and prosperity in the country versus those who want feudal raj.
Those who are making such claims or implying that such a divide exists, are the opposite of devolution fundamentalists. They may be acting out of innocent concern for higher education, but they end up seeming to be HEC chamchaas.
Pakistan doesn’t need any devolution fundamentalists, or HEC chamchaas. The truth is that a lot of what the HEC does is legally still the domain of the federal government or the central agency to which the government has delegated authority – in the HEC’s case this has been done statutorily through the HEC Ordinance 2002. Quality assurance and standardisation remain important. So too does the ability to shut down universities if they are not providing the minimum benchmarked quality of education. These are legitimate post-18th Amendment federal functions.
The big question is financing. Here, the provinces have a reasonable, but potentially dangerous case. Senator Rabbani would do well to avoid the path of the devolution fundamentalist, by ensuring that his proposed solutions address reasonable concerns without exposing universities, students, and teachers to very high and unnecessary risks.
The problem is simple. Instead of routing money through the HEC, provinces want the money for universities in their jurisdiction to flow through the province. This is a legitimate demand. But the risk here is off the charts. Not only do provinces not have adequate capacity. There are more urgent worries. What if a given province decides to take the money and spend it on handouts for the poor, under the Benazir Income Support Programme? Or take the money and build a new ring road around a big city? Or a new underpass? Or new bullet proof vests for its policemen?
A fiscally autonomous province should be free to make those decisions. But a sane and responsible provincial government would not make them at the expense of university financing. An inter-provincial mechanism could solve this problem. So too could statutory provincial ring-fencing of higher education budgets – both recurring and development. There is a solution here somewhere, if we’re willing to find it.
A federal HEC that ensures quality, and enforces standards is not inconceivable. A provincial financing mechanism for universities that ensures adequate and sustained levels of funding is also not inconceivable. We need not be devolution fundamentalists or HEC chamchaas to achieve all this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)