EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

More taxes

THE fresh tax measures announced by our cash-starved government to boost its revenues during the remaining three and a half months of the current fiscal have surprised no one. Some measures like a 15 per cent flood surcharge on incomes are temporary and scheduled not to last beyond June 30. Others like a 2.5 per cent special excise duty on imports and sales tax on sugar, domestic sales of the five major export-oriented industries and agricultural inputs are likely to remain longer. It was also not surprising to see the politically belea-guered government of Prime Minister Gilani circumvent parliament and implement new taxes of Rs53bn by promulgating ordinances. This may not be unconstitutional, but it certainly is not desirable. Apparently, the government’s failure to build political consensus in parliament on the controversial but important RGST led it to take this step. Had it chosen to take the fresh package to parliament, the opposition would have blocked the move. Even treasury supporters might have found it difficult to digest the new package.
Together, the additional taxes and expenditure reductions are expected to provide a cushion of Rs120bn to the government and help it restrict fiscal deficit to less than 5.5 per cent of GDP from the projected eight per cent or above. It will also help it to reduce its borrowings from the central bank and ease pressure on interest rates. Moreover, the implementation of the new measures will pave the way for the partial release of the currently blocked official capital flows from international donors and lenders. It would, therefore, be safe to assume that the government has at least stalled an economic meltdown.
Simultaneously, the government has announced fresh budget cuts of Rs67bn to make the new tax measures more ‘palatable’ to taxpayers. Development spending has again been scaled down, fresh recruitments banned and non-salary expenditure halved. But this will hardly appease the opposition. While it is necessary to boost tax revenues to protect the economy from collapse, the new measures cannot be described as equitable and fair. They will further burden the salaried class that has been asked to pay additional taxes of Rs20bn. No effort has been made to broaden the tax base and make the system equitable by removing exemptions given to the rich growers and property and stocks speculators. The government must realise that fire-fighting measures cannot help it prop up the economy or improve its public rating. It will continue to lose public support and the economy will continue to be un-stable until all segments of society are made to pay their due share of taxes.

Bahrain unrest

AS the Arab movement for change shows no sign of abating, all eyes seem to be fixed on the small Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. The island has been rocked by nearly continuous anti-government protests — some deadly — for the last month or so. Bahraini security forces uprooted a protest camp at Pearl Square — Manama’s answer to Cairo’s Tahrir Square — on Wednesday in which several protesters were reportedly killed as the king declared a three-month state of emergency a day earlier. At least one Pakistani was also reportedly killed in violence earlier in the week. But the arrival of a Gulf Cooperation Council military contingent on Monday threatens to escalate tensions. As nearly 2,000 Saudi and Emirati troops rumbled down the King Fahd Causeway into Bahrain from Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, the move attracted criticism from within Bahrain as well as from the region, with the Bahraini opposition calling the foreign troops an “occupation force”. While the six GCC states — under a common security framework — can call in the Peninsula Shield when a member state is threatened by military aggression, this is the first time the force has been deployed to deal with internal unrest.
What is happening in Bahrain is purely a domestic issue. The opposition, mainly made up of a dis-enfranchised Shia majority, is dissatisfied with the way in which the Sunni royal family is running the country and wants representative government as well as to secure the social, political and economic rights of the majority. Hence foreign military intervention, even within the framework of the GCC, is a questionable solution to the problem. It risks internationalising a local issue and should Iran get involved (it has denounced the intervention), the conflict is likely to stir up sectarian passions across the Muslim world. Interestingly, many Arab governments have denounced Muammar Qadhafi’s brutal suppression of the Libyan opposition, while the international community has mooted the idea of a ‘no-fly zone’ over the North African country. Yet the silence over Bahrain is deafening, where Arab and most Muslim governments, as well as the US, seem to be rallying behind the Bahraini regime. Pakistan’s religious parties are also conspicuous by their silence.

Rehabilitation refused

MYTHS and misinformation abound about HIV-Aids, particularly in countries with low literacy rates. Pakistan is no exception in this regard, with many believing that the disease can be ‘caught’ through a handshake or even by being near an infected person. Hepatitis C, though it doesn’t carry the stigma attached to HIV, is another ailment whose mode of transmission is poorly understood by the public at large. This is unfortunate but some small allowance can perhaps be made for ignorance or discrimination rooted in poverty and lack of education. But the same leeway cannot be given to officials in charge of healthcare facilities. As this paper reported on Tuesday, a government-run centre established in Karachi last year to treat and rehabilitate injecting drug users (IDUs) is turning away addicts who test positive for HIV or hepatitis C. And the rationale behind this policy? The project manager, for one, believes infected IDUs could spread these diseases to other patients at the rehab centre. How anyone can share syringes and inject drugs at a facility where addicts are closely monitored during the detoxification process remains a mystery. Either the staff there is not doing its job properly or the centre is being run on discriminatory lines.
By refusing to admit IDUs infected with HIV or hepatitis C, the centre is denying addicts their basic right to be treated. At the same time there is the risk that infected addicts who are rejected by the centre could, through the sharing of syringes, transmit the viruses to other IDUs. The latter may in turn unwittingly infect their spouses or other sexual partners. Addicts suffering from HIV or hepatitis C must be treated at par with other IDUs, not only for indivi-dual betterment but also to check the spread of these deadly diseases.