Karachi City District Government
Does anyone have some news articles on the running of the devolved government of pur biggest city? I believe the JI-MMA Nazim (Mayor) a huge supporter of President Musharraf’s local government plan is trying to assert his powers over the city’s administration against the jealous provincial government.
Here is the official site I found…
Map of the 18 Town Councils of the Karachi District...
[thumb=C]karachimap1.JPG[/thumb]
Just to add another web site:
The NEWS had several articles on the Karcahi City government:
Maybe this thread should be merged with our prevoius discusssion on the subject.
Thanks for that Zakk. It would be good if we can dig some of those articles out, and see how these district governments are functioning with their new responsibilities. From the Karachi and Lahore sites it is evident that district governments do (in theory) have a huge number of powers such as:-
That seems like a great deal of powers were devolved from Provincial level?
They do have considerable powers unfortunately no financial autonomy so no tax collection powers . They should've devolved power to the provinces from the federal government that would have reduced the pressure on the District Governments. Another opponent is the old DMG group, money is provided to the District Co ordination Officer rather than the District Nazim. They are flaws in the system as well, not much transparency and auditing, as well as little in the form of supplementry grants for those areas which are unable to generate revenue. And by comaprison to the old DC system Law and order in some areas has collapsed.
District govts facing admin problems: NRB
Can't find the links to these articles, it's fropm the Pakistan Governance Forum and links aren't always provided.
District govts facing admin problems: NRB
By Mohammad Kamran
ISLAMABAD: The National Reconstruction Bureau Chairman, Daniyal Aziz,
on Monday admitted that the district governments were facing problems
in administrative management and that the NRB was facilitating a
solution by introducing amendments in the rules of business in the
provinces.
"Pakistan has moved from bureaucratic control to political control
under the new local government system. Massive fundamental political,
administrative and financial restructuring is taking place. This is
not a Yellow Cab Scheme, and as such there are many loopholes in the
system," said Mr Daniyal while briefing reporters about the outcome
of his recently concluded Sindh visit.
The Police Order came into effect seven months ago while the entire
system is 17 months old. "This transition is a long-term process we
cannot wield a magic wand for getting a 100 percent outcome from the
new system. It is a grand transition but with the passage of time
things will be settled and the system will deliver," he added. The
NRB chairman said there were administrative obstacles on 23 issues in
Sindh including the devolution transfer fund, postings and transfers,
efficiency and discipline rules, honoraria of lady councilors and
provincial finance commission.
He said a committee comprising representatives of the provincial and
district governments had been constituted to look into complaints
aired by the Sindh local government. "In Sindh, the citizen community
boards are getting financial support from the public. It is mandatory
to allocate 25 percent of the total budget of the district to CCBs.
"While the CCBs spend 20 percent of the money on a project from
internal sources the remaining 80 percent of the funds are provided
by the concerned district government," he said, adding that in Sindh
the public was generating 20 percent of the project money but it was
yet to be decided what mode of payment should be adopted to give them
the funds.
Mr Daniyal said lack of training of the nazims was the main hindrance
in running this system. He said NRB consultants were to leave for
Karachi to impart training to the representatives of all the three
tiers of the new system. The three-day training session will start on
Tuesday (today). About the amendment in the 6th Schedule of the
Constitution vis-a-vis the local government system, Mr Daniyal said
the 6th Schedule was introduced along with the 1973 Constitution. The
purpose of the schedule was to secure the reform-oriented laws.
"Vested interests have attempted to harm the system for ulterior
motives. The politicians of conventional mindset are against this
system for ulterior motives," he alleged.
Hail Local Government System :k:
To early to draw conclusions but it’s a great step that clearly shows Pakistan has moved from Bureaucratic control to Political control.
Informative thread Malik :k: and thanks for sharing articles, Zakk. :k: Always a pleasure!
LGs can’t deliver without fiscal devolution: WB
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-6-2003_pg7_19
Staff Report
BHURBAN: Multilateral creditors including foreign donors on Saturday stressed the need for decentralization of the tax system from the federal to the local level aiming at strengthening the devolution process in Pakistan.
“The local government system cannot deliver without fiscal devolution,” Anwar Shah, a senior official of the World Bank said while giving a presentation to the participants of a forum on ‘Intergovernmental Relation and Improved Service Delivery in Pakistan’ held under the auspices of the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) in collaboration with the WB.
Mr Shah suggested that there should be no revenue sharing and every tier of the government should be responsible for tax collection and its judicious disbursement. He called for ensuring tax decentralisation, fiscal capacity equalisation to a standard and getting lessons from international experiences to move ahead towards the desired direction of devolution.
While elaborating on the drawbacks of the Provincial Finance Commission (PFC), Mr Shah said the benchmarks for large cities and for smaller ones are the same as such “one size fits all for large city districts vs smaller rural districts”.
Khairpur District Nazim Nafisa Shah Jilani and Hyderabad District Nazim Makhdoom Khaleeq-uz-Zaman lambasted the monopoly of the provincial government as well the AG Department for creating delays in the release of funds. She said even the approved funds are being delayed deliberately. “The government has released 55 percent of the allocated amount but who is responsible for the remaining 45 percent which the provinces could not get despite no mistake on their part?” Ms Nafisa questioned.
However NRB Consultant Riaz Khan told the participants that it was not possible to provide financial resources from federal level to the district level directly. “No mechanism is in place for it and we do not even encourage the discussion of this issue at any forum,” he added. He said there was a problem with the fiscal transfer system in Sindh and the Punjab was facing no problem in this regard.
Meanwhile, NRB Member Naeemul Haq said an allocation of Rs 1.7 billion had been made for the 1,508 citizen community boards (CCBs) from 98 districts against a target of Rs 6.5 billion set by the district governments. He said the CCBs can revolutionise the social sector and dispelled the impression that the CCBs would be dominated by the families of the nazims. He said the monitoring of the local government system could prevent the domination of the nazims in the formation of the CCBs.
The way to the local goes through the province Pakistan must urgently find a formula for distribution of revenues to cradle progress at all levels. Starting with a more realistic and acceptable division of taxing powers
By Dr Ikram-ul-Haq
There is something fundamentally wrong with Pakistan’s constitutional structure of distribution of taxing powers between the federation and the federating units. The centre has always usurped the right of the provinces to levy tax on goods and services within their territorial jurisdiction.
The distribution of taxes from the divisible pool under the National Financial Commission (NFC) is done on the basis of population. This is the cruellest way to deprive the less-populated provinces of their right to due share despite the established fact that one city alone contributes nearly 60 per cent of taxes on income and goods in the country.
Assignment of taxes is a vital constitutional and political issue. It is a perpetual source of disharmony between the centre and the provinces and it is high time that proper attention is given to solving the state’s taxing predicaments.
Assignment of a tax means transfer of taxation power from a higher level to a lower level government. Taxation power includes the following: right to levy tax, collect tax and appropriate the proceeds from such tax. Thus, there can be three interpretations of assignment of a tax. First, higher-level government may levy and collect a tax but hand over the entire proceeds to lower level governments. Second, the higher-level government may levy a tax but allow the lower level governments to collect it and retain fully the proceeds there from. Finally, the higher-level government may transfer a tax to lower level governments, a situation which defines assignment of a tax in its strictest sense.
In Pakistan, the opposite has happened. By using both the federal and concurrent list, the federal government has violated the financial and economic rights of provinces. The provinces should have the exclusive right to levy taxes on goods and services within their respective physical boundaries, but the federal government has blatantly encroached upon this undisputed right of theirs by levying tax on goods and services under the garb of presumptive taxes in Income Tax. Such taxes cannot be termed as taxes on income (which the federal government is empowered to levy under item 47 of the Federal List) but these are taxes on goods and services.
This argument was not presented in the Supreme Court when the constitutionality of such provisions was challenged in 1991. The debate then merely revolved around the concept of income. If the federal government can treat tax on goods and services as tax on income, as upheld by the apex court per incuriam in Elahi Cotton Case PLD 1997 SC 582, then what will be the sanctity of division of fiscal powers between the federation and the provinces, provided in the Constitution of Pakistan?
Generally, the purpose of tax assignment is to augment the resources of lower level governments. The assignment of tax may be conditional. Thus, it may be obligatory on the part of a lower level government to levy tax assigned to it. Not only this, the lower level government may not have powers to alter the basic structure of the assigned tax. It may enjoy flexibility in fixing tax rates within a minimum and maximum range prescribed by the higher-level government.
Our tragedy is that on the one hand we have too many taxes in the country (federal, provincial and local, although the last two only generate negligible revenue), and on the other the benefit of revenue collection is not reaching the poor masses. Fiscal gap is increasing every year, despite IMF-World Bank’s bitter prescriptions that pile more misery on the common people. The reform process initiated in the 1990s has badly failed to reform our tax system.
The prime reason for this failure is that provinces have not been given any meaningful role in the process. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR), the revenue collection authority at federal level, has emerged as a neo-East India Company, pursuing the agenda of the foreign masters. It is simply impossible to improve tax administration when tax officers serving in provinces are not accountable to provincial governments and instead behave as ‘rulers’ imposed by Islamabad.
The generally accepted principles of taxation are efficiency (explained by reduction in distortions in the allocation of resources), equity (requiring the more able to bear the burden of paying tax at higher rates) and effectiveness of the administrative machinery. How can these principles be enforced in Pakistan when the tax administrative machinery is reminiscent of the worst in the colonial era, both in thinking and practice?
Shahid Hafeez Karadar very righty observes: “In our case tax administration weaknesses with regard to enforcement arise because of an ineffective legal system and the lack of effective accountability of government employees. Greater publicity should be given to cases of tax evasion (only those upheld by courts or conceded to by taxpayers) in the hope that public shame would serve as one of the deterrents to tax evasion. Good governance in a structure of transparent taxation cannot be achieved with the same ease as computerisation of the taxation system through purchase of equipment and supporting software. These essentials will continue to elude us as long as the governing political system nurtured and supported by the elite is financed by black money through institutionalized instruments and mechanisms for evading taxes. How does one overhaul such a system through the transformation of the political structure is a million-dollar question that defies easy answers as to the need for tax reform built around transparent and simpler systems of taxation. However, the reality is that there are no quick fixes. Exercises to simplify tax laws and to ensure effective enforcement can take several years, as the experience of even developed countries shows. – for instance, it took Canada 10 years to implement the proposals of the Carter Commission.”
When Shaukat Aziz became the finance minister (for the first time), he claimed the centre would retain only three taxes – income tax, customs duty, and sales tax. He never mentioned that in most parts of the world sales tax is a provincial levy with a rate ranging between 3 per cent to 8 per cent. In Pakistan it is a federal tax (the worst example of constitutional highhandedness), which is shared, to a negligent extent, with the provinces.
The provinces also promised to curtail total number of taxes from about 25 to five. As the centre failed to collect even Rs. 500 billion in tax revenue and could only distribute Rs 173 billion to all the provinces in the fiscal year 2001-2002, consequently, the provinces could not reduce the total number of their taxes. Now the local bodies are demanding more taxes to function effectively, so the chances of reducing the tax burden on the masses are fast diminishing.
We are faced with a dilemma where the centre is unwilling to grant the provinces their legitimate right and in turn the provinces are unable to reduce the ever-increasing burden of taxes. The real sufferers in this centre-province conflict of interest are the voiceless masses.
The centre might have given away some of the federal taxes to the provinces, most likely sales tax as has been the case in India, if the federal revenues had increased substantially. But tragically, despite all kinds of oppression including coercion, withholding of refunds and what not, it has taken the CBR four years to progress from a total tax collection of Rs 307 billion to Rs 401 billion – an average increase of Rs 24 billion a year. This year the revenue target has been fixed at Rs 460 billion, while the collection last year was only Rs 401 billion, against a target of Rs 456 billion.
Unless some revolutionary steps are taken and a new constitutional taxing contract negotiated between the centre and the provinces there is little hope for realising a benchmark of Rs 600 billion tax revenue, which is necessary to give fiscal space both to the centre and the provinces to come out of the present mess and extend some relief to trade and industry for growth. In the near future our federation-provinces taxing impediments will continue, the country will remain dependent on foreign donors and more and more people will be pushed below the poverty line.
For Pakistan to come out of this crisis, there is an urgent need for ensuring equitable distribution of fiscal and taxing powers between the federation and provinces. True provincial autonomy can only be guaranteed if a fair assignment of tax is followed in letter and spirit. Provincial autonomy cannot be achieved by electing local bodies representatives and by dislodging the old district management system. Let the provinces have exclusive right over their resources and finances and allow them to transfer taxes to local governments so that grassroots democracy and funding for public services can be guaranteed.
Deduction at source
The financial wrangling between the provincial and district governments is just beginning. The situation in Karachi is a case in point
By Shujauddin Qureshi
Aimed at providing powers to people at the grassroots level, the new district government system, after its implementation two years ago, is still passing through an age of infancy, particularly as far as financial issues are concerned.
The situation in Karachi is perhaps the worst, given that it is home to more than 14 million. The devolution plan divides Karachi city into 18 towns with 278 union councils. These towns, parts of the main city, are divided administratively with governments responsible for all municipal functions including water, sanitation and street lights. The City District Government of Karachi (CDGK) with a 255 member council is the supervisory body. It looks after education, health, main roads and bridges etc.
Although the Sindh Local Government Ordinance (SLGO) 2001 has been promulgated to run the district governments and many amendments have been made to make it effective, there is no method for the distribution of financial resources. The three-tier local government system, comprising district government, towns or taluka (tehsil) and union council governments could not take off in practical terms because of lack of coordination and other political considerations.
This fledgling system received a huge blow particularly after the formation of the provincial and federal governments after the October 2002 general elections. Proving correct the apprehensions of certain experts that the district government system would face resistance once the provincial governments are formed.
A tug of war started between the provincial Sindh government and the city government as early as December 2002. The appreciable one-and-a-half year performance of the CDGK came to a standstill as provincial minister Muhammad Hussain started interfering in the affairs of the local government.
The reason for this power tussle was mainly political – as the provincial government is dominated by the urban-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), whereas the City government nazims belong to Jamat-e-Islami (JI). Also a majority of town nazims and union council nazims are affiliated with JI since MQM boycotted the local government polls. The rest of the nazims have political affiliations with Pakistan People’s Party, despite the fact that the elections were held on a non-party basis.
As a consequence, development activities in the city are suffering; the provincial government has discontinued transferring funds to the district governments. “Even the funding under Khushhal Pakistan Programme has been stopped,” complains a town nazim.
The local governments depend on the federal or provincial governments for resource allocation. The Federal Matching Grant, which is being provided to the local governments after abolition of the octroi system in 1999, is the main source of finances for the local government system these days. The district governments receive this grant and distribute it among the town governments, according to a distribution formula. The town governments then pass it on to the union councils for carrying out their work.
“With the amount granted we can only pay the salaries and petroleum expenses of vehicles,” says Farooque Ahmed Memon alias Faria, the nazim of the largest town of Karachi, Saddar. “We cannot initiate development projects we committed to in the budget last year,” he elaborates.
Saddar Town has over 3,400 municipal and other staff, and their salaries sum up to at least Rs 12 million per month, Faria says. “The town administration has to maintain over a 100 vehicles including garbage disposal and water supply trucks.”
The situation in other towns is no different as the town managements depend on the city government for funds to run their day-to-day affairs. “We are running our affairs with Rs 15 million soft loan given to each town by the city government,” says Abdul Khaliq Jumma, Lyari Town nazim.
Comprising mostly old areas of Karachi, Lyari Town is facing acute civic problems including water shortage and a defective sewerage system. Funds are required for repairs of road, supply of drinking water and a proper sewerage system, says Jumma. But he further adds that even the funding, earlier provided from Khushhal Pakistan Programme (KPP) has been discontinued.
“Under the KPP, the Lyari Town had already spent Rs. 30 million on the construction of roads, water and sanitation facilities,” he explains. The provincial taxes have not yet been transferred to the district governments because of which the working of the local governments is suffering.
Under the formula of distribution of Octroi Income, which is provided by the federal government from General Sales Tax (GST), 52 per cent of the total revenue goes to CDGK, where as the remaining 48 per cent is distributed among 18 towns according to their requirements. But the exact amount is never sanctioned. “We have been receiving 25 per cent less than our share,” City Nazim Naimatullah Khan said in his last year budget speech. And now as the city government is in the process of preparing a budget for the next fiscal year, the grant promised last year has still not been issued. “We received limited funds from the Federal Matching Grant this year,” said Chairman of Finance and Planning Committee, CDGK, Council Nazir Ahmed Sajid. “There is a shortfall of about Rs 4.5 billion on account of transfer of resources from the federal and Sindh governments,” he adds.
The CDGK has to receive over Rs. 4 billion per annum from the federal government, which is equal to the Octroi tax collected by the defunct Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) in 1999. The CDGK has urged the government to increase the amount of funding after four years. “We are receiving Rs 387 million per month from the federal government, which is distributed among towns according to a sharing formula,” says Nazir Sajid.
But this amount is received a month late; when in a fiscal year the CDGK gets only 11 such instalments. Besides federal funding, the CDGK should receive about Rs 3 billion from the Sindh government on account of its claim on resources of devolved bodies, which had to be transferred to the City government. These bodies include defunct Karachi Development Authority (KDA), Lyari Development Authority (LDA) and Malir Development Authority (MDA), Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) and Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA).
Moreover, property tax, entertainment tax and some other provincial taxes, that were to be transferred to the district governments have still not been handed over – and “there is no hope for it this year,” maintains Sajid.
Even the Sindh government has deducted an amount of Rs 852 million at source because the former civic bodies like KDA, LDA and MDA owed them the amount. The Sindh government has only transferred Rs 103 million to the CDGK from property and entertainment tax, official sources reveal. “We have approached the Sindh government for release of Rs 852 million,” mentions Nazir Sajid.
According to CDGK sources, although the City government generates some revenue on its own through fees and charges like charged parking, advertisement fees, trade licence fee, food licence, the total is negligible. This year CDGK has granted a contract of Rs 61 million to a single contractor to collect charged parking fee from the entire city. The charged parking fee is considered one of the main sources of income for Karachi City government after abolition of the octroi system.
The power struggle is on at lower level as well. Many departments under the control of the City government were to be transferred to the Town administration, but this decision has not been implemented as yet. For example, the Water Board and Karachi Building Control Authority, which were under the control of the defunct KMC had to be shifted to towns under the Devolution Plan.
Despite the fact that CDGK and Towns administration are bravely pleading their case at different levels, the frustration among town nazims is obvious these days. “Sometimes I feel, where am I stuck. The system should be allowed to run,” comments Farooque Faria, the energetic Town nazim of Saddar.
Within NFC constraints
http://www.dawn.com/2003/text/op.htm
By Shahid Kardar
It is always interesting to read reviews of provincial budgets. The analysis is conducted as if provincial governments in Pakistan have a large degree of freedom to formulate their budgets based on their own priorities. Unfortunately, the reality is just the opposite. Provincial budgets are essentially made in Islamabad, such is the reality of provincial autonomy in the federation of Pakistan, as I proceed to argue below.
Pakistan has a highly centralized tax structure, especially after the introduction of a 15 per cent sales tax in VAT mode under instructions from the IMF. Resultantly, in excess of 80 per cent, and in the case of two provinces close to 90 per cent, of provincial incomes come through statutory transfers from the divisible pool under the NFC Award or in the form of royalties on oil and gas.
The centralized tax structure and the limits placed by the Constitution on the taxation powers of lower levels of governments, combined with the demands of debt servicing and the central role in our polity of the military which consumes a significant chunk of internal resources, means that the share of the provinces is limited to 37.5 per cent.
Whereas, in principle, the provinces are the partners of the federal government in the sharing of the divisible pool, and hence have a direct stake in any changes made in the size of this pool, they are never consulted in decisions pertaining to additions to, or reductions in, its volume, despite their heavy dependence on transfers from it for financing their activities.
Although both the multilaterals and the federal government lecture provincial governments ad nauseam on the need to enhance their own revenues through the exploitation and widening of their revenue base, the federal government has simply refused to extend the GST on services to cover professionals like lawyers, accountants, engineers, tax practitioners, etc., although GST on services is a provincial subject under the Constitution. The federal government is reluctant to extend the net to a highly charged and politically vocal community since it would have to face the political flak of taxing them while the revenue benefits would flow to the provinces, as Islamabad would only be entitled to a two per cent collection charge from such a source.
The federal government also controls, pre-empts and exploits the revenue base of the provinces. For instance, it has levied a withholding tax on motor vehicles, which is a potentially important revenue base/instrument for the provinces. The provinces have limited leeway even in determining expenditure priorities. They are forced to implement national priorities set by Islamabad based on commitments made to donors.
There is perfunctory, if any, participation of the provinces in establishing these priorities. Take the recent example of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) designed in consultation with the IMF. The provincial governments were hardly involved, even in determining the outcomes and indicators that are being used to judge the country’s performance.
Some decisions of the federal government have huge expenditure implications for provincial governments. For instance, the 15 per cent increase in salaries and pensions of civil servants announced in the budget for 2003-04 will unduly burden the budgets of provincial governments. The ripple effect of this decision taken without consulting the provincial and district governments will be devastating for their budgets.
Almost the entire additional revenue transfers to the provinces in 2003-04 will be absorbed by the implementation of this decision. The federal government cannot argue that the provincial and local governments may not give concomitant increases to its employees, if they cannot afford it. It would be politically impossible for provincial and district governments not to enhance the salaries of their own employees as well.
After devolution and the transfer of the operational aspects of delivery of services like education, health and drinking water supply to local governments, the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government, be it federal, provincial, or district, have been fundamentally altered.
Resultantly, the historical mandates of the federal and provincial agencies require a shift away from the operational aspects of service provision. Islamabad, however, having introduced a supposedly more effective decentralized framework for delivery of basic social services, continues to function as if business is as usual. It has simply refused to let go by downloading its functions, mandates and responsibilities. How else can one explain federally run health programmes and a Rs. 100 billion education sector reform programme?
It is because of the unfair and highly inequitable distribution arrangement under the 1997 NFC Award that we have the ridiculous situation of Islamabad executing education and health-related programmes, both essentially provincial subjects under the Constitution.
Similarly, in complete disregard of local priorities, the federal government is constructing and rehabilitating irrigation channels and intra-provincial roads. A typical example of this anomaly is that when district governments in Sindh requested Wapda that instead of spending money on the rehabilitation of the Rehri canal, funds should be diverted to other projects of greater local priority, they were flatly told by Wapda that the only choice they had was to either accept this project or nothing at all.
We have seen above how the federal government restricts the freedom of provincial governments to mobilize resources either by raising revenues or by reducing expenditures. Another instrument for augmenting resources in the short term is access to credit. Even here the degree of freedom of provincial governments is highly circumscribed.
The provinces cannot raise debt, even in rupees from domestic financial markets, without the prior permission of the federal government, which the latter promptly denies. While expenditure and borrowing-related restrictions are first placed on the provincial governments so that the deficit ceilings prescribed by the IMF are not breached, there is little control over the latter’s borrowings other than those covered indirectly by the budget deficit targets laid down by the IMF.
Contrary to Islamabad’s claims of good financial management, the reality is that the bulk of the cost of the structural adjustment programme has been borne by the provinces. This has resulted in outcomes like the decline in net enrolment rates at the primary level, as allocations for social services and essential development expenditure suffered under the IMF programme. Even the benefits of the recent debt relief have not been shared with the provinces. Whereas the federal government was able to get substantial debt relief enabling it to significantly reduce its outflows in the form of debt servicing, the provinces have got nothing of this benefit.
In view of the above facts, it will not be possible for the provinces to effect any increase in pro-poor expenditures to implement the PRSP until the highly iniquitous NFC Award is revised, whereby the provinces are compensated for the loss of almost Rs. 550 billion that they will have suffered by the end of the financial year 2004 from the revision in the sharing of the divisible pool compared with what they would have received under the 1990 NFC Award.
Any reviews of provincial budgets that do not take these limitations and constraints into account are inherently flawed; they tend unjustly to castigate governments that are essentially rubber-stamping what has been handed down to them by the federal government.
The writer is former finance minister of Punjab.
Police will not be allowed to suppress the poor: NRB
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_6-7-2003_pg7_25
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: The National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) Chairman Daniyal Aziz has said the police will not be allowed to suppress the poor of Pakistan.
Mr Aziz, while talking to a press conference on Saturday, said, “There will be no compromise on resources when it comes to police reforms. The practice of using the police for political vendettas must be stopped and we want a change in the system.”
He said each police station in the country would receive Rs 0.77 million for public safety measures and improve the efficiency of police officials.
He said the union councils would be responsible for using the amount allocated to each police station. He said the police system in the rural areas needs a major overhaul and that could only be possible with the involvement of local people. “When we go to the people for votes they tell us tales of police atrocity. This image of the police must be changed,” he said.
He announced, “The councilors will be educated and trained to successfully run the affairs of the their councils.”
While admitting that there were shortcomings in the new system, which would be removed with the passage of time, Mr Aziz said that the last fiscal year was a hallmark in devolution. “We carried out a changeover from a century-old system to the new system which is going to take some time. But it is a fact that vast progress has already been made in this regard,” he said.
Replying to a question, he said NRB would prepare a comprehensive report on the complaints of the union councilors in this month.
Earlier, Mr Aziz chaired a seminar on ‘Devolution Support Network’ (DSN)’, which was organized by the Socio Engineering Consultant (SEC).
A number of public representatives from local government addressed the seminar and informed the participants about the problems they were facing from the establishment.