Analysis: Pointed questions, elliptic reply
Debate revolved around the contentious question of how to look after personal businesses while holding public office
PHOTO: AKRAM ABID
In response to the pointed questions put forth by the combined opposition, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif chose to give a lengthy but elliptic statement on the floor of the National Assembly.
The newly coalesced opposition led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) left the house immediately after the premier concluded his speech, saying it sparked even more questions.
Panamagate: PM's refusal to answer 7 questions prompts opposition’s walkout
The much-awaited ‘policy statement’ of the PM in the lower house might not have been up to the opposition’s expectations, but it certainly had enough to broach a healthy debate.
When the NA speaker asked Opposition Leader Khursheed Shah to take the floor after the PM’s speech, he took less than a minute to wind up his comments and announced a walkout.
Others, including the PTI, had to follow the PPP’s decision – in a strategy questioned by many.
Later, they spoke to the media outside Parliament House, giving an indication the Panama leaks controversy would be debated more outside parliament rather than inside.
This followed a tit-for-tat response by the government. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafiq warned the opposition against crossing the “red line”.
Both Khawaja’s mentioned some prominent names among the opposition, who want their political rebirth through the newfound opportunity from Panamagate.
The PM, however, repeated his aristocratic family background in his clarification. He also handed over a file to the speaker on the tax details of his family and some pictures of his late father with Emirati royals when he started a business in UAE in the 1970s after Bhutto’s nationalisation policy.
Without taking any names, he targeted PTI leaders Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen for their debauchery. Nawaz did not forget to mention his benevolence to Imran when as the Punjab chief minister he allotted the cricketer a plot for his Shaukat Khanum cancer hospital.
Where the premier once again repeated his family background, like he did in his two addresses to the nation, he also offered the opposition to form a parliamentary committee to formulate mutually acceptable terms of reference for the Panama commission.
Once again, however, he shied away from setting an example by volunteering himself to stand first in the accountability dock.
Though he gave a slight hint of providing more details of his tax history, if the parliament ever sought it that is, he was also quick to apply the famous principle of egalitarianism in case any tangible accountability process kicks off.
“This will not conclude here nor should it. It should lead toward its logical end,” the PM remarked, referring to what has been called across-the-board accountability – a delusionary term used often.
Probably for the first time, the premier spoke in parliament about the accountability commission the PPP and PML-N had agreed to set up about a decade ago when Benazir and Nawaz signed the Charter of Democracy.
Had our political leadership been serious about it, the current political chaos being witnessed might have been avoided.
Blast from the past
In an informal chat with The Express Tribune, a former minister had narrated an anecdote on the seriousness of the political clique regarding accountability.
The incumbent prime minister had come into power for the second time in 1997 with a thumping two- thirds majority. In one of the sittings of the kitchen cabinet, the narrator also being part of it then, a sane voice proposed adopting some law on conflict of interest.
PM squares up for NA confrontation over Panama leaks today
The proposal has come in the backdrop of the dismissal of second government of Benazir Bhutto on corruption charges.
“One of us proposed legislating on a conflict of interest law to avoid mudslinging,” recalled the former minister. After some introductory remarks by the proposer, a few others seconded him. Among the ministers sitting in that meeting, some are part of the present cabinet as well.
The minister says, Nawaz Sharif questioned: “Then who will look after our businesses?”
The debate revolved around the contentious question of how to look after personal businesses while holding public office.
Sensing circumlocution of the debate, the proposer suggested selling the shares if these businesses could not be handled in a professional manner in absence. “We are here for business,” interjected one of the participants, the minister recalls. With this the debate ended there once and for all.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2016.
The newly coalesced opposition led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) left the house immediately after the premier concluded his speech, saying it sparked even more questions.
Panamagate: PM's refusal to answer 7 questions prompts opposition’s walkout
The much-awaited ‘policy statement’ of the PM in the lower house might not have been up to the opposition’s expectations, but it certainly had enough to broach a healthy debate.
When the NA speaker asked Opposition Leader Khursheed Shah to take the floor after the PM’s speech, he took less than a minute to wind up his comments and announced a walkout.
Others, including the PTI, had to follow the PPP’s decision – in a strategy questioned by many.
Later, they spoke to the media outside Parliament House, giving an indication the Panama leaks controversy would be debated more outside parliament rather than inside.
This followed a tit-for-tat response by the government. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafiq warned the opposition against crossing the “red line”.
Both Khawaja’s mentioned some prominent names among the opposition, who want their political rebirth through the newfound opportunity from Panamagate.
The PM, however, repeated his aristocratic family background in his clarification. He also handed over a file to the speaker on the tax details of his family and some pictures of his late father with Emirati royals when he started a business in UAE in the 1970s after Bhutto’s nationalisation policy.
Without taking any names, he targeted PTI leaders Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen for their debauchery. Nawaz did not forget to mention his benevolence to Imran when as the Punjab chief minister he allotted the cricketer a plot for his Shaukat Khanum cancer hospital.
Where the premier once again repeated his family background, like he did in his two addresses to the nation, he also offered the opposition to form a parliamentary committee to formulate mutually acceptable terms of reference for the Panama commission.
Once again, however, he shied away from setting an example by volunteering himself to stand first in the accountability dock.
Though he gave a slight hint of providing more details of his tax history, if the parliament ever sought it that is, he was also quick to apply the famous principle of egalitarianism in case any tangible accountability process kicks off.
“This will not conclude here nor should it. It should lead toward its logical end,” the PM remarked, referring to what has been called across-the-board accountability – a delusionary term used often.
Probably for the first time, the premier spoke in parliament about the accountability commission the PPP and PML-N had agreed to set up about a decade ago when Benazir and Nawaz signed the Charter of Democracy.
Had our political leadership been serious about it, the current political chaos being witnessed might have been avoided.
Blast from the past
In an informal chat with The Express Tribune, a former minister had narrated an anecdote on the seriousness of the political clique regarding accountability.
The incumbent prime minister had come into power for the second time in 1997 with a thumping two- thirds majority. In one of the sittings of the kitchen cabinet, the narrator also being part of it then, a sane voice proposed adopting some law on conflict of interest.
PM squares up for NA confrontation over Panama leaks today
The proposal has come in the backdrop of the dismissal of second government of Benazir Bhutto on corruption charges.
“One of us proposed legislating on a conflict of interest law to avoid mudslinging,” recalled the former minister. After some introductory remarks by the proposer, a few others seconded him. Among the ministers sitting in that meeting, some are part of the present cabinet as well.
The minister says, Nawaz Sharif questioned: “Then who will look after our businesses?”
The debate revolved around the contentious question of how to look after personal businesses while holding public office.
Sensing circumlocution of the debate, the proposer suggested selling the shares if these businesses could not be handled in a professional manner in absence. “We are here for business,” interjected one of the participants, the minister recalls. With this the debate ended there once and for all.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2016.