Doctors’ protest
Saturday, 25 Jul, 2009
DISRUPTION in the delivery of basic services like healthcare can mean the difference between life and death. This observation is underscored by the Punjab-wide doctors’ strike on Thursday when tens of thousands of patients, some of them in serious condition, were unable to get essential medical attention because their would-be healers were out to make their own woes heard. The strike did not come about all of a sudden. Doctors at government hospitals have been protesting for the regularisation of their services and promotions for close to a year now. A few weeks ago, they had threatened a ‘long march’ on the chief minister’s residence. They abandoned the idea after some influential personnel promised that notifications would be issued in acceptance of their demands. By the look of things, the strike would not have come to pass if the provincial government had not prevaricated on its commitments.
The provincial authorities should not have made pledges that would be difficult for them to honour. The government should have instead told the doctors that regularisation and promotions require a lot of money which the authorities did not have and that accepting some of their demands would mean bypassing the Punjab Public Service Commission. This would set a bad precedent and further weaken the already beleaguered provincial services. Thus persuaded, the doctors might have agreed to withdraw some of their more controversial and expensive demands. But the government has chosen to deal with the issue differently by apparently trying to drive a wedge between doctors’ associations and obfuscating the issue. Official media managers are insisting that the chief minister has already regularised the services of thousands of doctors while ‘summaries’ regarding their remaining demands are ready. These tactics will induce a sense of alienation and aggravate the problem, making life even more difficult for patients.
************************************************** *******
The deal that wasn’t
Saturday, 25 Jul, 2009
IT was the opinion of this paper that “the Pakistan government is counting its chickens before they’ve hatched.” That assessment was made in mid-May, a few days after the foreign minister proclaimed that a nuclear power deal with France was all but done and dusted. Even though Paris made no such promises, at least not in public, Shah Mehmood Qureshi insisted that “France has agreed to transfer civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan.” Mr Sarkozy, he claimed, said there was no reason why Pakistan should be treated differently from India in terms of access to nuclear power technology. The French take was altogether different, with Mr Sarkozy’s office clarifying that he had offered to help Pakistan improve its nuclear safety capability. This position was confirmed on Thursday by the French secretary of state for foreign trade, who told the press in Islamabad that her country’s partnership with Pakistan in the realm of civilian nuclear energy would be limited to safety and security issues. Clearly the chickens haven’t hatched, and the government must be censured for acting with undue haste and indulging in hype.
That said, France’s refusal to sell civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan smacks of an obvious double standard. India, like Pakistan, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India and Pakistan both conducted nuclear tests in the ’90s that were widely condemned in the West. A US moratorium on nuclear trade with India, dating back to the ’70s, was already in place and Pakistan too had been placed under sanctions. Yet, in a major deal, the US has since agreed to sell reactors to India while Pakistan continues to be ostracised by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Significantly, the US-India agreement does not require the latter to cap fissile material production at a time when most nuclear powers are cutting back on the same. And though a system of checks and safeguards have been guaranteed on paper, the American technology transferred to India could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
None of this is India’s fault, of course. It pressed its case and used its clout and got what it wanted. New Delhi’s position was probably helped by the fact that, unlike Pakistan, India does not have a history of nuclear proliferation. But times have changed. Pakistan is trying to make a new beginning, and it must be recognised by the international community that this country’s economic and social progress is being impeded by an energy crunch that is worsening by the day. Nuclear power can go a long way in easing the burden.
************************************************** *******
Press under fire
Saturday, 25 Jul, 2009
THE Geneva-based Press Emblem Campaign has warned of an increase in the killing of journalists around the world. It says that 53 journalists have been killed so far this year in various countries, as compared to 45 in the corresponding period last year. Mexico tops the PEC list with seven deaths. However, Pakistan — where six journalists have died this year — is identified as the most dangerous country for this profession, with the situation comparable to that in Iraq and Somalia. The danger faced by Pakistan’s journalists is hardly surprising. Over the past year, the country has seen a deteriorating security situation. Journalists have lost their lives in suicide bombings and have also been killed by either militants or security forces during the recent army operation in the north-west. They have died in the crossfire and been targeted. It is distressing that the state has done very little to discourage such violence: no conclusive investigation has been launched to probe the deaths of the unfortunate journalists and no perpetrators have been brought to justice.
The fact is that the intimidation of journalists has become routine in Pakistan. The failure of successive governments to either properly investigate such cases or bring offenders to book has created an environment where press rights and freedom are violated with impunity. Indeed, on various occasions the state has itself attempted to restrict journalistic activities and coerce specific members of the profession. The consequence, as the PEC president noted, is a very negative effect on objective reporting. The expansion of the country’s media industry will remain meaningless until an environment is created where journalists can work with objectivity, without fear of harassment or intimidation of any sort. The government must immediately take steps to protect journalists’ lives and livelihoods. It must not only refrain from intimidating journalists directly or indirectly, it should also vigorously pursue non-state actors that issue threats against or unleash violence on press organisations and individuals. Creating a culture of safety for journalists will enhance the capacity of the media to contribute to building a confident and lasting democracy.
************************************************** *******
OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press Another killing: who cares?
Saturday, 25 Jul, 2009
THEY came, they shot and they fled in Galle on Wednesday. Another … opposition politician, Dushyantha Seneviratne (40) has been … gunned down in broad daylight in front of his children on their way to school. His killing has sent shockwaves through the southern province. The killers have not yet been identified and opinion is divided on their motive but the message they have conveyed is chilling: criminals are still capable of striking at will.
Political assassinations are not of recent origin. But one thought the culture of violence would end after the elimination of northern terrorism….
What has emboldened criminals to continue their operations? Their confidence stems from several factors such as political connections, the prevailing culture of impunity and a flawed legal system characterised by inordinate delays and leniency to lawbreakers….
War has ceased to be a stock excuse for the government’s failure to restore the rule of law. The eastern and northern fronts are now quiet and the government must concentrate on criminals holding out on the southern front. It is preening itself on having defeated terrorism but the high incidence of criminal activity is likely to take the gloss off its military achievements.
The government must do its utmost to have the killers of the Galle politician brought to justice so as to prove that it had no hand in that dastardly crime or criminals have not rendered it completely impotent. Let it not be said that a government that crushed terrorism has lost to lesser criminals! — (July 24)