 |
|
|
Reports of
avoidable and superfluous expenditure by many State
Government functionaries continue to reflect unconcern
for the much-hyped financial crunch faced by the State.
There are several items of such expenditure that can
indeed be saved immediately. First, vehicles of various
hues assigned to departments continue to be put to gross
.....more Government employees continue to be on strike for more than a week now. Work in all the offices stand paralysed. Sick humanity is the worst sufferer with medical services also materially affected by the ongoing strike. Not only Government employees but even employees of Public Sector Undertakings are on warpath bringing the wheels of their undertakings.....more |
|
BJP’s swadeshi lobby An ace of spades in |
 |
||
EDITORIAL Reports of avoidable and superfluous expenditure by many State Government functionaries continue to reflect unconcern for the much-hyped financial crunch faced by the State. There are several items of such expenditure that can indeed be saved immediately. First, vehicles of various hues assigned to departments continue to be put to gross misuse. It is strange that ministers who are supposed to keep an eye on whatever goes on in departments under them happen to give very bad lead to others. They not only requisition these vehicles for very odd purposes unrelated to official work but also disturb the work of the department from which such vehicles are abruptly withdrawn and put at the disposal of their friends, kins and all those close to the respective ministers. Such vehicles have been found to be used for carrying marriage parties and/or put to use for other related functions. They also are known to ferry sundry items to which such dubious and unauthorised users are not entitled for the very simple reason that they are neither government servants nor anybody to be taken notice of. Their only qualification and greatest attribute is closeness to the minister who blindly orders placing such departmental vehicles at the disposal of otherwise unauthorised persons. In the process administration suffers because many important visists/works are held up due to abrupt 'disappearance' of the vehicle. Surely none in the bureaucratic hierarchy can afford to incur the wrath of his Minister. Any refusal or strict compliance with rules and regulations could result in very odd and difficult place of posting and/or other indignities that could be inflicted on him. Think of the consumption of petrol/diesel, repairs and other related expenditure. Think of the man-hours lost due to absence of vehicle from the concerned department. Imagine the inconvenience caused to people whose work might have been the immediate casualty. But a happy and satisfied minister on personal account is the safest bet for any official to remain in obliging posture on demand. Second, it has already been stated in these columns the high expenditure being incurred by the State on having large and unwieldy team of ministers for a small State like J&K. Worst still is the predicament of inefficient and inexperienced hands going about their new found status quite haphazardly which compounds problems of the people. Accountability for all faux pas and misdemeanours in any case is conspicuous by its absence. Being minister is something for him, for his kins and for his friends. But serving the people with zeal, sincerity and dedication unfortunately are totally missing. The State shall indeed be better off in financial and administrative terms with one-third size of the cabinet which ought to have experienced and dedicated hands to be fast on delivery. It is indeed an avoidable expenditure. Third, and it is repeated for the umpteenth time, someone must take care of abnormal strength of police and employees on the per capita basis. Some sort of rationalisation is indispensable. There are places where employees are needed but remain elusive. They are anywhere but their actual place of posting. True, there is unemployment and other than Government service hardly any opening is available due to lack of industrialisation and untapping of vast hydel power potential. But then some via media has to be found for making it a reasonably balanced affair. How it is to be done is the job of the Government. Fourth, unviable public sector undertakings must be closed down and auctioned off. This Government is in no position to revive them and the next best thing it can do is to sell the same to private enterprise keeping in view the interests of the workers who can either be offered golden hand-shake or retained by the purchaser of such sick units. Why Government continues incuring huge expenditure on such redundant units needs to be explained. It is indeed an avoidable expenditure. Fifth, with enhanced rates of TA for various sections of employees at all rungs, the temptation to arrange frivolous visits which are indeed either family or business visits is going to increase manifold. It has been the practice when officials at all rungs visit Jammu/Delhi when durbar is in Srinagar and vice-versa when durbar is in Jammu. The entire administration somehow remains jaunt-happy. One has really to devise ways and means to stop all such avoidable expenditure. The cumulative savings from the above and many other items not specifically mentioned would go a long way in saving the State and the people from the headaches and awkwardness that stem from empty coffers every other day. This also earns the State the ignominy of bad financial management. Government employees continue to be on strike for more than a week now. Work in all the offices stand paralysed. Sick humanity is the worst sufferer with medical services also materially affected by the ongoing strike. Not only Government employees but even employees of Public Sector Undertakings are on warpath bringing the wheels of their undertakings to a grinding halt. Even otherwise they have seldom been profit making units and with production coming to naught, someone has to ponder over the additional losses that would put abnormal burden on the already resource starved State. While demands of Government employees are mostly centred round what has been committed by Government and duly conceded in formal and informal negotiations, PSU employees do not wish to lag behind Government employees and they do strive for some sort of parity as regards salary structure and allowances. Right now the gap has widened and hardly anyone cares to narrow it to the extent possible. As regards Government employees they are asking nothing new. They have been urging the Government to fulfil their commitments made in the wake of applying 5th Pay Commission recommendations. The arrears on that count were promised to be released in three steps but even first instalment has remained elusive. In the same vein, announcement of dearness allowance instalments are delayed and arrears allowed to accumulate for months together. Ultimately, employees find themselves cheated when arrears are ordered to be transferred to respective GP Fund of the employees. This upsets them as breach of faith. Employees are also very disturbed over the fund management which suffers from gross infirmities. They have been demanding transfer of their GP Fund Accounts to banks for proper management and accountability. The Government continues to be mute on this crucial demand which indeed can be conceded. Otherwise, Government can be accused of being a party to funds mismanagement when one knows what is happening there with hardly any statement or accountability. There have been other demands that formed part of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations but not conceded for the State Government employees. Payment of annual bonus remains the most contentious but otherwise genuine demand because bonus is officially classified as 'deferred wage'. It is part of the wages all the same. But Government continues to drag its feet compelling the employees to resort to strike. The people are obviously the sufferers. Soon, it will be a strike that would make the city look a very dirty place and stinking affair as per past experience as soon as other sections also join it. For heavens sake, let not the past be repeated and let genuine demands be conceded forthwith. |
||
|
||
BJP’s
swadeshi lobby retreats for the present Is the Vajpayee Government jettisoning swadeshi economics in favour of pragmatic and investor-friendly reforms ? A firm conclusion in this regard cannot be drawn at this stage. Perhaps the Government’s conduct in respect of the Insurance Regulatory Authority Bill and the Patents (Amendments) Bill is only a one-time gesture of defiance of the Bhartiya Janata Party’s mentor, the RSS. Perhaps, the defiance is also inspired and influenced by the fact that there is no other controversial reform-oriented legislation on the agenda right now. If, as it seems, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee has launched a counter-offensive, then the battle lines may have to be re-drawn once again at the time of the annual budget in February next year - assuming, of course, that the Government lasts till then. The BJP’s swadeshi lobby has had to retreat for the present, but it would be rash to imagine that it will fade away after one setback. Two messages have flown out of the Government’s flip-flop on the insurance and patents Bills. First, the Congress-BJP equations have undergone a subtle change even if only within Parliament to the limited extent of pushing through reform-linked legislative business. Had the Congress not cooperated , the Government would have found it difficult , if not impossible, to get the women’s reservation, the insurance and patent Bills tabled in the Lok Sabha. However, any Congress-BJP cooperation does not — and obviously cannot — extend beyond this. The non-Congress, non-BJP opposition’s allegations of an organised collusion between the two parties in opening up vital economic sectors to multinationals, however, will continue to be heard. The Left has drifted even farther apart from the Congress in the last few days, and the Samajwadi Party leader, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, has already dubbed the Congress as "enemy number one". Second, given the determination of the Prime Minister, if not other BJP leaders or coalition partners, to resist pressures from the swadeshi lobby, the RSS may have to do some serious re-thinking on how far to allow the Government to accommodate the interests and concerns of foreign investors. The recent Sangh Parivar think- tank session in Nagpur made no secret of its displeasure with Mr Vajapyee’s assertion of his authority. The charge against Mr Vajpayee is that his Government is compromising on national interests. A showdown may well have occurred, but for the fact that Mr LK Advani has chosen to support the insurance Bill. In other words, it is now up to the entrenched pro-RSS hard-liners within the BJP to determine Mr Vajpayee’s fate. Actually, in fairness, it needs to be recorded that both in the insurance and patents Bills, the Government has been careful not to go overboard in succumbing to foreign investment pressures. After all, the idea of ending the LIC and GIC monopoly originated with the Congress. The Vajpayee Government has been under the combined pressure of the Congress and foreign investment lobby to speed up insurance reforms. Three features of the Insurance Regulatory Authority Bill are unexceptionable. First, the Government retains the final say on policy. Second, fears of flight of capital from Indian insurance business have been allayed through the stipulation that "no insurer shall directly or indirectly invest outside India the funds of the policy holders". Third, as part of the commitment to protect the interest of policy holders, backdoor entry of foreign companies is to be checked and there is to be a bar on promoters selling their stake. Of course, there is view in the country that the 26 per cent ceiling on foreign equity is high. As against this, there is also the feeling that foreign companies may not have been attracted at all had the ceiling been less. Also, that the 60 per cent equity available to domestic investors is high enough in a de-monopolised environment for Indian insurers if they are really keen on competition. The one-day anti-IRA strike by LIC and GIC employees is a poor commentary on their enthusiasm to enter into competition. It is to be hoped that the joint select committee to which the IRA Bill has been referred will not unduly delay its return to the House. Mr Vajpayee’s counter-offensive strategy for putting the swadeshi lobby in its place was no more in evidence than in the firmness with which he dealt with the crisis situation which erupted in the wake of Industry Minister, Mr Sikander Bakht’s threat to resign rather than submit to RSS pressure, in respect of the patents Bill. The Swadeshi lobby’s strategy was to put the Bill into cold storage by sending it to a select committee. The Congress had a vested interest in getting it enacted speedily; after all, the measure was originally piloted by the Congress Government. In any case, reference to the select committee would have delayed enactment beyond April 1999, the deadline for getting the measure incorporated into the WTO and the GATT regime. |
||
|
|
Will there be Sino- US
engagement or embroilment ? There is a growing school of thought among influential sections of American society which worries that the Clinton administration's policy of ''constructive engagement'' with China is increasingly reducing America's policy options in the economic, political and strategic areas. The wrenching debate about granting most favoured nation (MFN) status to China in 1997- that in 1996, US companies exported nearly 12 billion dollars in merchandise to China, such exports supported more han 1,70,000 high-wage jobs in a variety of high valued added sectors, many thousands of additional jobs depended on services related to China trade, and all those jobs would be at substantial risk if China's MFN status came to an end. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California, ranking Democrat on the house Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, complained that the administration had ''chosen to hold US-China policy hostage to the profits of a few exporting elites at the expense of most products made in America.'' Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came on even stronger. He charged that the Clinton administration's policy towards China lacked morality and accused it of being ''shamelessly servile.'' When candidate Clinton was campaigning for his first term in the White House, he never hesitated to blast President Bush for ''mollycoddling dictators' including the ones in Beijing. But once seated in the Oval office, his tune changed to what columnist William Safire caustically described as an ''open doormat'' policy. The basic premise then became that continued MFN status for China was good for Sino-US commerce, was crucial for sustained US influence, and would enhance economic, political and religious freedom in China. However, since the President delinked trade from human rights four years ago, the human rights situation in China and Tibet has deteriorated, the US trade deficit with China has soared in 1997 to 50 billion dollars, piracy of US intellectual property has increased, costing the American economy 3.2 billion dollars in 1997, and Beijing blithely continues its sale of nuclear, chemical, missile and biological weapons technology around the wold, including Pakistan and, the latter to Iran, America's bete noire. So much for the White House hopes of engagement moderating Beijing's methods and manners. The Clinton administration's blinkered policy towards China became evident with the handing over of the crown colony of Hong Kong. The strategic import of the moment was deliberately overshadowed by the gaiety of the round-the-clock ''celebration'', which could not quite suppress the subterranean disquiet that rippled through the psyche of the cognoscenti. High -ranking US officials, from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright down, along with eminent personages from other nations, mouthed platitudes about ''orderly transitions'' and their intention to ''hold the People's Republic of China accountable'' for preserving Hong Kong's freedoms. For their part, Beijing and those it anointed to govern Hong Kong, cleverly echoed the same refrain with the mantra of ''one country, two systems,'' suggesting that Hong Kong will continue to remain free, with business as usual. But it is not the case now. Tell that to the millions on the mainland who were truly ecstatic about getting back under control what to them was a wart on the visage of China's national pride. Tell that to the greater millions who see Taiwan as an unfinished issue of nationhood which needs to be settled before China can feel psychologically whole again. As for Hong Kong, it is clear that it is ''free'' in a restricted economic sense. What was Asia's most vigorously independent press has already begun exhibiting a tendency to self-censorship. Businessmen in Hong Kong who lack guanxi (connections) to Beijing's power structure are finding themselves at a disadvantage inconducting commercial activities. China has actually promised that Hong Kong will be able to retain its free market economic policies for the next 50 years. But there are serious doubts that it is really capable of maintaining the freedoms that made Hong Kong unique and one of the most prosperous places on earth. There are many who fear that it might be the beginning of the end for Hong Kong. One of the most sceptical among experts is Alvain Rebushka of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Rabushka predicts that China will ''decimate the political, civil and economic liberties that define Hong Kong's way of life.'' The reason is that economic, political, religious and other freedoms are ultimately tied together. Although China has moved a long way towards adopting economic freedom, it remains ruthless in its suppression of other freedoms. And Beijing will inevitably move to crush free speech, a free Press, religious tolerance and other non-economic freedoms, which in turn will erode the spirit that made Hong Kong what it was. Perhaps the basic difference between Hong Kong and China, in Rabushka's view, is their differing views on the rule of law. Hong Kong adheres strictly to the view that the judiciary must be absolutely independent, all citizens are equal before the law, that the law must be enforced impartially, and that citizens have rights that no Government can violate. China on the other hand, has no such traditions and, in fact, views rights as synonymous with anarchy. If, as Rabushka suspects, Chinese control destroys the rule of law in Hong Kong, it will inevitably undermine many of the institutions that underpin is economy. Contracts, private property and the Hong Kong dollar come readily to mind. The Hong Kong dollar has been directly linked to the US dollar to an extent that monetary policy in the crown colony was practically run by the US Federal Reserve Board. It is very unlikely that China will continue to tolerate such interference in what it correctly considers to be its rightful domain. The scenario that emerges from all this for Hong Kong is that civil liberties will be restricted, the economy will increasingly become dominated by firms with connections in China, and the cosmopolitan character of the city will gradually erode. In the end, Hong Kong will remain as yet another, and valuable, money making machine for Beijing. Hong Kong, in effect, will undoubtedly become another political and diplomatic challenge for America. China's clearly banking on the Clinton administration and a jobs-business-economy majority in Congress not rising to the challenge. Beijing believes, based on experience of other confrontations, that Washington's stated commitment to Hong Kong's freedom is more empty rhetoric. America's threats of dire consequences if that freedom is jeopardised meant for domestic consumption. Time will tell if that is a correct assessment. It would, of course, be less of a problem for America if China were just another fast-developing nation posing a real challenge in the global market-place. But there are indications that Beijing's new affluence has given it strategic ambitions, which include nullifying US influence, at least in the Western Pacific and the South China Sea. Many experts believe that the US could one day wake up as surprised by Beijing's military build-up as it was by its economic boom. The country that now challenges America as the world's lone economic superpower could soon threaten it on the seas as well. It is an absolute given that China cannot and will not rest until it manages to reunify Taiwan. The US policy of considering Taiwan a part of China, but insisting that Beijing makes no aggressive moves is inherently flawed. Suppose China makes a grab for Taiwan. It will be bloody and costly, but it can be done. And how will the US react? The conventional wisdom is that the US 7th fleet would go into action and use its awesome power to stop China. But for how long? Peter W Rodman, who served four American Presidents as national security aide, argues that for China to succeed in its aim, it need not match America's naval might worldwide, merely in the region that matters to Beijing. All China needs to do, Rodman suggests in a new report for the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, is possess sufficient weapons to ''raise the costs and risks to the United States of coming to the aid of allies and friends''. And that is precisely what Beijing has been doing. Since the beginning of the 1990, it has been stockpiling an arsenal specifically designed to neutralise US naval power in the region. As Rodman sees it, China is to the end of this century what Germany was to its beginning, ''the brash emerging power, rapidly growing stronger and arming itself, demanding that the international system make room for it''. The threat comes from a country of 1.2 billion people, with 3 million men in arms, and now the global port of Hong Kong within its belt of power. (INAV) |
|
| home | state | national | business | editorial | advertisement | sports |
