Opposition looks unprepared to make ‘hostile’ analysis of budget
Had the opposition analysed the budget, it would have been able to raise relevant questions
Opposition leader Khursheed Shah. PHOTO: INP
ISLAMABAD:
What would the opposition in both chambers of parliament do to force the government to bring out the federal budget 2017-18 more transparently?
Of course, there are many aspects in this budget that have not been projected with the best of transparency.
Could more transparency help the opposition to object to major spending projections as unreasonable, lavish, uncalled for, against national interest or cumbersome for the taxpayer and the consumer population?
Rs1 trillion development budget unprecedented in history of Pakistan: PM
I do not think so. Take a look at the budget outlay, the spending and resource figures, the debt and bank borrowing and the money set aside for state-run corporations.
The opposition sounded unprepared, non-serious, disoriented and unwilling to make a hostile analysis of the new budget statement. Had it been serious and prepared, it would have asked certain questions about the spending, especially those related to debt repayment, bank borrowing, development programme, social sector uplift and the progress on projects under way on which nearly the double the originally projected sums had been spent without completion.
No political party came out with an assessment of budgetary details with the history of spending and resource allocation. This was the fourth budget of a government that had faced court cases on corruption charges in the past.
The opposition tends to grill leaders of the ruling party on political as well as financial grounds, but without taking pains to analyse its performance in terms of fund allocation and achievements.
Now, take a look at salient features of the federal budget. Total outlay is Rs4.681 trillion (4.3% higher than 2016-17), total resource projection (tax and non-tax) is Rs4.681 trillion, net revenue receipts are estimated at Rs2.926 trillion, net capital receipts are estimated at Rs552.5 billion, external receipts are estimated at Rs837.8 billion (up 2.2%), defence allocation is Rs920 billion (up 7%), debt servicing is targeted at Rs1 trillion, expenditure on general public service is estimated at Rs2.553 trillion, size of the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) is Rs2.113 trillion, Rs377.9 billion is for federal government (ministries and divisions), Rs380.6 billion for public sector corporations, Rs30 billion for Prime Minister’s Sustainable Development Goals achievement programme, Rs40 billion for special federal development programme, Rs12.5 billion for energy, Rs12.5 billion for clean drinking water, Rs7.5 billion for earthquake reconstruction, Rs5 billion for special provision for completion of CPEC projects, Rs45 billion for IDPs, Rs45 billion for security enhancement, Rs20 billion for prime minister’s initiatives and bank borrowing is estimated at Rs390.1 billion.
No expert can tell from these figures what actually will be the performance of this government. These are the projected figures about how the government will run itself next year, pay its debt, finance the debt and defence spending and improve resources.
It is not the allocation and resource figures that reveal the performance of a government. Instead, better financial management tells actual story of the government.
The present government shows neither the skill nor the intent to manage the financial sphere, but the opposition performs even more poorly by not coming up with alternative projections for improving the budgetary exercise.
Why? Because the opposition does not take its duty seriously, it does not demonstrate the skills to analyse how and why the budget and the budgetary performance of the government are not acceptable to the taxpayer and the consumer population.
If the opposition were to take its duty seriously and improve its analytical skills, it would be pointing out why only one-fifth of the budget outlay was allocated for development projects in a situation when more than one-fifth was to be consumed by debt servicing?
Which of the ongoing development projects were suffering from undue delays and which of them burdened the coffers with cost escalation of unacceptable magnitudes?
Opposition rejects budget calling it 'anti-people'
Why was potable water supply projects got meagre financing and how could the IDPs be helped with such paltry allocation? For what major projects, foreign loans were obtained to burden the budget and how was the loan acquired and spent? Which of the spending remained un-audited for years and what kind of accountability was conducted on this count?
The opposition needs to do its homework properly.
The writer has worked with major newspapers and specialises in analysis of public finance and geo-economics of terrorism
Published in The Express Tribune, June 12th, 2017.
What would the opposition in both chambers of parliament do to force the government to bring out the federal budget 2017-18 more transparently?
Of course, there are many aspects in this budget that have not been projected with the best of transparency.
Could more transparency help the opposition to object to major spending projections as unreasonable, lavish, uncalled for, against national interest or cumbersome for the taxpayer and the consumer population?
Rs1 trillion development budget unprecedented in history of Pakistan: PM
I do not think so. Take a look at the budget outlay, the spending and resource figures, the debt and bank borrowing and the money set aside for state-run corporations.
The opposition sounded unprepared, non-serious, disoriented and unwilling to make a hostile analysis of the new budget statement. Had it been serious and prepared, it would have asked certain questions about the spending, especially those related to debt repayment, bank borrowing, development programme, social sector uplift and the progress on projects under way on which nearly the double the originally projected sums had been spent without completion.
No political party came out with an assessment of budgetary details with the history of spending and resource allocation. This was the fourth budget of a government that had faced court cases on corruption charges in the past.
The opposition tends to grill leaders of the ruling party on political as well as financial grounds, but without taking pains to analyse its performance in terms of fund allocation and achievements.
Now, take a look at salient features of the federal budget. Total outlay is Rs4.681 trillion (4.3% higher than 2016-17), total resource projection (tax and non-tax) is Rs4.681 trillion, net revenue receipts are estimated at Rs2.926 trillion, net capital receipts are estimated at Rs552.5 billion, external receipts are estimated at Rs837.8 billion (up 2.2%), defence allocation is Rs920 billion (up 7%), debt servicing is targeted at Rs1 trillion, expenditure on general public service is estimated at Rs2.553 trillion, size of the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) is Rs2.113 trillion, Rs377.9 billion is for federal government (ministries and divisions), Rs380.6 billion for public sector corporations, Rs30 billion for Prime Minister’s Sustainable Development Goals achievement programme, Rs40 billion for special federal development programme, Rs12.5 billion for energy, Rs12.5 billion for clean drinking water, Rs7.5 billion for earthquake reconstruction, Rs5 billion for special provision for completion of CPEC projects, Rs45 billion for IDPs, Rs45 billion for security enhancement, Rs20 billion for prime minister’s initiatives and bank borrowing is estimated at Rs390.1 billion.
No expert can tell from these figures what actually will be the performance of this government. These are the projected figures about how the government will run itself next year, pay its debt, finance the debt and defence spending and improve resources.
It is not the allocation and resource figures that reveal the performance of a government. Instead, better financial management tells actual story of the government.
The present government shows neither the skill nor the intent to manage the financial sphere, but the opposition performs even more poorly by not coming up with alternative projections for improving the budgetary exercise.
Why? Because the opposition does not take its duty seriously, it does not demonstrate the skills to analyse how and why the budget and the budgetary performance of the government are not acceptable to the taxpayer and the consumer population.
If the opposition were to take its duty seriously and improve its analytical skills, it would be pointing out why only one-fifth of the budget outlay was allocated for development projects in a situation when more than one-fifth was to be consumed by debt servicing?
Which of the ongoing development projects were suffering from undue delays and which of them burdened the coffers with cost escalation of unacceptable magnitudes?
Opposition rejects budget calling it 'anti-people'
Why was potable water supply projects got meagre financing and how could the IDPs be helped with such paltry allocation? For what major projects, foreign loans were obtained to burden the budget and how was the loan acquired and spent? Which of the spending remained un-audited for years and what kind of accountability was conducted on this count?
The opposition needs to do its homework properly.
The writer has worked with major newspapers and specialises in analysis of public finance and geo-economics of terrorism
Published in The Express Tribune, June 12th, 2017.