09-07-2007, 02:36 PM
Mr. M.M. Khan through DAWN of 26 August on the recent concern of the World Bank on use of funds in Pakistan, refers to the rampant corruption. He says it had been customary to have an ombudsman at the federal level to work as internal auditor. His working that imagine the federal and four provinces being managed by one man suggests as it he is presuming there exists only one single ombudsman in Pakistan who can not do all this work. He had some illusion that internal ombudsmen had been working in each separate department. Only a very few Departments created internal ombudsman like National Bank of Pakistan but those practically never worked and were created just to create a new post. He suggests that single ombudsman system should be dropped and a Public Monitoring Committee (PMC) with substantial budget be formed. He further refers to some annual reports of ombudsmen earlier having been discussed in the parliament.
The idea of PMC is just in line with our national habit of creating a commission over commission, creating a super complaint cell over a complaint cell, then over it with more huge cost an On Line Complaint Cell but for closing it a few months later to let the computers find way to bla bla bla. We created Federal Ombudsman, then provincial ombudsmen and now separate ombudsmen for Tax, Banking etc. District level ombudsmen are soon to be established. In proportionate to the expense on such system what in return the nation has got? In the own words of M.M. Khan ârampant corruptionâ. Late K.H. Khurshid once stated introduction of ombudsman system increase the ârate of rishwatâ. Our ombudsmen system for first 6-8 years in case of Federal and for some 5-6 years in case of Sindh did marvelous job despite teething problems. What happened later can be understood from a sentence in his public article by an ex Director General of an Ombudsman Secretariat âsoon the officers working in the ombudsman secretariat shifted their sympathies from the suffering common man to their counterpart bureaucracyâ. Has the public sufferings decreased? If the answer is No, then it shows failure of Ombudsman system. And if the answer is Yes, then why need a new PMC?
The Federal Ombudsman had been dealing to a good extent satisfactorily banking and tax complaints. We created separate ombudsmen. Was this admission of failure of the Federal Ombudsman or was it just to create a new office to create new posts. Has now tax complaints drastically reduced? The whole ombudsman system has in fact is a ground to provide jobs mostly to retired people in the name of advisers, consultants while most of these so called consultants do not know even the basic thing namely the importance of delivery of notices to the parties an essential part of justice. It did not surprise me at all when I saw a highly paid Consultant/Adviser did not know even his own correct contact address. I had been visiting one such Secretariat. In its reception room there used to sit a senior officer with more than 20-25 chairs to very nicely welcome the complainants. Whenever I visited I found the room almost full. The room has long gone and the said officer too. Today in that Secretariat there are very limited occasional visitors. On my query off the record the officer concerned whispered âJaved Sahib, when people know nothing from these doors can now be achieved then why would these poor come here wasting their time and money on travelâ. In one Ombudsman Secretariat each time I visited I had to surrender my NIC at the gate to be picked up while leaving the Secretariat. Thus an ombudsman was doing an illegal thing as under the Law as shown in the Pakistan Law Commission site an NIC is to present and prove oneâs identity and one can not give his NIC to someone else.
Universal concept of an ombudsman is that it diagnosis an act of mal administration and recommends remedy to put the derailed system back on track so that the same mistake does not happen again. In other words it means that an ombudsman leaves standard impact on the society. Has any standard impact our ombudsman system left except for providing annually a few hundred individual reliefs. Under our present day situation the solution is not to waste more money on any new experiment like creation PMC. Last month I addressed the âcompetentâ authority seeking information if as a Public Interest issue I can formally suggest wrapping down of the whole ombudsman system and the money thus saved to be provided to the SC section dealing with public interest litigation for better use of money. I am of the opinion that with this money SC can concentrate more on its public interest litigation but only on the issues which concern the community in larger. The SCâs effective enforcement of its decisions on such public interest litigation will soon leave a standard impact and individual relief seeking complaints would soon gradually automatically greatly come down.
The idea of PMC is just in line with our national habit of creating a commission over commission, creating a super complaint cell over a complaint cell, then over it with more huge cost an On Line Complaint Cell but for closing it a few months later to let the computers find way to bla bla bla. We created Federal Ombudsman, then provincial ombudsmen and now separate ombudsmen for Tax, Banking etc. District level ombudsmen are soon to be established. In proportionate to the expense on such system what in return the nation has got? In the own words of M.M. Khan ârampant corruptionâ. Late K.H. Khurshid once stated introduction of ombudsman system increase the ârate of rishwatâ. Our ombudsmen system for first 6-8 years in case of Federal and for some 5-6 years in case of Sindh did marvelous job despite teething problems. What happened later can be understood from a sentence in his public article by an ex Director General of an Ombudsman Secretariat âsoon the officers working in the ombudsman secretariat shifted their sympathies from the suffering common man to their counterpart bureaucracyâ. Has the public sufferings decreased? If the answer is No, then it shows failure of Ombudsman system. And if the answer is Yes, then why need a new PMC?
The Federal Ombudsman had been dealing to a good extent satisfactorily banking and tax complaints. We created separate ombudsmen. Was this admission of failure of the Federal Ombudsman or was it just to create a new office to create new posts. Has now tax complaints drastically reduced? The whole ombudsman system has in fact is a ground to provide jobs mostly to retired people in the name of advisers, consultants while most of these so called consultants do not know even the basic thing namely the importance of delivery of notices to the parties an essential part of justice. It did not surprise me at all when I saw a highly paid Consultant/Adviser did not know even his own correct contact address. I had been visiting one such Secretariat. In its reception room there used to sit a senior officer with more than 20-25 chairs to very nicely welcome the complainants. Whenever I visited I found the room almost full. The room has long gone and the said officer too. Today in that Secretariat there are very limited occasional visitors. On my query off the record the officer concerned whispered âJaved Sahib, when people know nothing from these doors can now be achieved then why would these poor come here wasting their time and money on travelâ. In one Ombudsman Secretariat each time I visited I had to surrender my NIC at the gate to be picked up while leaving the Secretariat. Thus an ombudsman was doing an illegal thing as under the Law as shown in the Pakistan Law Commission site an NIC is to present and prove oneâs identity and one can not give his NIC to someone else.
Universal concept of an ombudsman is that it diagnosis an act of mal administration and recommends remedy to put the derailed system back on track so that the same mistake does not happen again. In other words it means that an ombudsman leaves standard impact on the society. Has any standard impact our ombudsman system left except for providing annually a few hundred individual reliefs. Under our present day situation the solution is not to waste more money on any new experiment like creation PMC. Last month I addressed the âcompetentâ authority seeking information if as a Public Interest issue I can formally suggest wrapping down of the whole ombudsman system and the money thus saved to be provided to the SC section dealing with public interest litigation for better use of money. I am of the opinion that with this money SC can concentrate more on its public interest litigation but only on the issues which concern the community in larger. The SCâs effective enforcement of its decisions on such public interest litigation will soon leave a standard impact and individual relief seeking complaints would soon gradually automatically greatly come down.
